Need RE buyer's agent recommendations

[jacob]

We're looking into spending ~100k on a house along the metra BNSF line.

Having considered most options and realized that we're probably going to hang around for at least 2-3 years more (or maybe 5 or 7) and being tired of spending 10k/year on apartment rent and looking for some homeowner experience over the next few years, we're seriously considering buying. Finally.

100k is below the commission threshold for the redfin agents. Not really comfortable buying a first house with just a book or a checklist to keep us out of trouble, so we're looking for a buyer's agent.

PM me if you know any.

[vivacious]

Don't they list good ones on Zillow? When you're looking at a property there are usually a few recommended agents to go with it. Ones that specialize in the area or whatever. You can see how people rated them too. Probably not a bad place to start unless you have a more direct connection like an agent a friend used etc.

[jacob]

@vivacious - Maybe they do on Zillow. On redfin, for properties below about $125, there's a vague excuse about "excess demand" and "not qualifying for a full commission" and a suggestion to contact the seller's agent directly.

[vivacious]

Yeah I think they do. I'm not too familiar with redfin. I think Zillow might be a little more flexible.

[robby152]

Probably not what you want to hear since you already said you aren't comfortable buying without an agent, but FWIW I have yet to complete a real estate transaction with a real estate agent on either side of the table (3 purchases so far). It can be done and isn't that bad. The title company takes care of the title insurance and most areas where you can get fleeced. The contract is easy to read (just check for an 'out' clause so after you get an inspection if something isn't good you bail). You can also put in a financing contingency so that if something doesn't work out your financing can get you out and get your earnest money back. Whatever you decide, good luck!

[Riggerjack]

My experience with buyer's agents is they are kinda handy, if you want to deal with the same person for walking thru the properties. Other than that, fairly useless. The get paid based on a deal going thru, period.
It would be nice if they did something else, but in my experience, the fewer real estate agents, the better.
The only professional ethics in RE is title and escrow. Mortgage agents aren't bad, but I'd rather deal with a selling agent acting as a dual (double) agent, than have my own. Ask the selling agent if they are comfortable being a dual, and picking up the escrow charges.
this does two things, saves you a bit of money, and minimizes delay and "he said, she said" BS when the agent drops the ball.
all that being said, the real value of a real estate agent is in holding your hand and coaxing you thru what should be a nerve racking experience. It is worth it, if you think it's worth it.

Good luck!

[sshawnn]

wrt to physical properties of the property:

Maybe it is worth it to seek out a home inspector who works the area and build an independent relationship with that person. A home inspector referred to you by a listing agent (or a buyers agent) just wants to refer you to someone who will push the sale through for commission.

Have you seen this site?

http://www.livebytransit.com/searches/3505

[Seneca]

I know you said you're looking for an agent, so sorry if you've already thought of these-

What kind of property are you buying?

If you're going to do most of the work finding the property anyway, you're a great candidate to find a realtor or real estate attorney who will handle the offer process and close escrow with you for a modest flat fee. These forms are basically all autogenerated by software, and work well for a typical home.

We thought about doing this, but the further you get from the typical condo or single family residence in a subdivision, the more you need a buyer's agent who specializes in your type of property. In our case there were many things we didn't know to ask about on our acreage property so he was well worth his fees. We also had a referral to him from a close friend who had had a business relationship with him.

Personally I really don't like the obvious conflict of interest using a buyer's and seller's agent. However, the house we bought and live in now was listed by our buyer's agent. We found the property ourselves and asked to see it without knowing this. His salespitch was all negative to start, we practically had to talk him in to bringing us out here. Had I not had full trust in him, I would not have done this, but it ended up really working out for us. If you do this, make sure to negotiate them down, he came down about 35% on his fee with this deal and helped broker our water rights free.

Our first buyer's agent would've caused us real headaches had Bay Area real estate not turned around so fast. He definitely was a liability, not an asset. (Due to his sales pressures, not the paperwork)

[My_Brain_Gets_Itchy]

Hi Jacob,

Happy new year.

Not sure if you have decided yet, but just wanted to add my advice, which ofcourse you can take with whatever grain of salt. Not sure exactly how different things are done in the US vs Canada, but I imagine they basically share the same things.

The reason I would bypass a buyers agent and go the DIY route in your particular situation is because of something akin to a 'reverse' Freakonomics effect of disincentive.

If you are in the Chicago market for a $100k property, and you have a buyers and sellers agent, and total comissions is 6%, than your buyers agent can only profit $3,000, and that is before taking into consideration broker fees, etc. So really it's a lot less.

Since you are a first time buyer, you will tend to be higher maintenance,ie. more time needed, ie less profitable for an agent. Which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, if you were in the market for higher priced properties.

If you were in the market for a $500k property, the agent would be in line for a $15k commission, ie which is five times the profit.

Where it gets really obvious here, is that an agent does more or less the same amount of work for each transaction (ie time, showings, etc).

Smart/good agents will for the most part realize this. I don't think an agent would ever outright say no to a client, but you won't necessarily get the customer service or attention you may think you are gonna get because the agent is a 'good agent'.

For example, I went to a showing (without a buyers agent) for a listing that was in the low $100k. The listing agent of this property (who would be considered 'a top agent') sent her aged mother who had no real estate credentials.This is of course, is illegal. The top agent delegated the task to her mother, because the property value/potential commission gets the level of attention/service based on her incentive. Most of her other listings were in the 1/2 million to million mark. There is no way she would have done this with her $1mil dollar listings.

It's kind of like the difference between a sales person at the GAP vs a sales person in say Rodeo Drive.

So where does that leave you?

Well, you will still get a plethora of agents offering you their service. But the filter is a bunch of agents who are novices, are not very good, part time, etc. I.E. these agents are suspect when it comes to the attention to detail things which is the exact reason why you want to hire one.

Chances are, being the compotent INTJ that you are,and that you are way more educated than the average person, you will know as much, or more than your agent will.

You can possible find a good buyers agent, and that all I said may not apply, but given the dynamics, its a bit of a needle in a haystack. this is somewhat of a generality, and I could be totally wrong.

I found using the incentive of NOT having a buyers agent against the sellers/listing agent is a huge advantage. IE using the Freakonomics effect against the selling agent. Good deals, bargains, great finds, usually (not always) have multiple offers or competition. If you are in a multiple offer situation on a property and your competition has a buyers agent, then based on the Freakonomics incentive, the agent will side with you, even if you offer is lower than your competition because the agent will get more commission from you, and that's what their incentive is.

If you could leverage the knowledge here (ie. people who live in Chicago) to help you out and answer the majority of your first time buyer questions, as people here are incredible smart, knowledgeable, experienced, and aren't looking for a commission.

I would then focus on hiring or getting recommendations on the people where their incentive is the same regardless of the property price. For us in Canada, that would be a good lawyer (ie they get paid the same whether the closing cost is $500k or $100k). The lawyer handles all the most important things in the transaction, and a good lawyer is more important imho, than an agent.

Good luck jacob, and hope you find a nice home.

[Davin]

^ I actually just went through this. I went to look at a short sale townhouse and asked a friend of a friend to be my buyers agent. When he saw the listing he wrote me a email stating that he would be sending his assistant. Which was actually his handyman that he uses to flip investment properties. Who proceeded to give me all kinds of incorrect information ( I actually had a RE license for a little while.. then I learned about office fees, MLS fees, continuing education credits needed, etc and gave it up once 2008 hit).

I have not been able to find good help in the below 100k price range in our area. But, if I do I will forward any info your way.