I don’t believe he is one of the twelve best receivers in the league, so for him to finish top 12, everything has to go right for him.

Why doesn’t the government just build some housing of their own, enact the policies they want to run, and then point to it as an example of how much better their policies are?

Dude, congress couldn’t even agree on daylight savings.

Life isn’t fair and you’re angry about it. I see you. You can either accept the way the world works or do something besides yelling at the clouds. Like, maybe an alternate idea? Just remember, there have been a lot of people smarter than you or I that have tried and failed to figure out how to implement a better system.

So they’re giving money away to rent to people. Like…it’s on sale or something. Kinda sounds like the free market at work.

You clearly have no experience dealing with landlords. I can tell you from first hand experience many landlords suck with technology. They are really not that savvy. And they certainly aren’t “colluding”.

Maybe you’re referring to very large sophisticated entities like Blackrock, but the vast majority of owners are much more mom and pop, and the moms and the pops are out of touch with tech as much as they are with whatever slang teenagers use these days.

How are you so sure of that?

These shoes are absolute fire.

Today is April 1st isn’t it?

I guess I just don’t do business like that then. That’s wild. And yeah I kinda do think people would remember the specifics. This is usually the LARGEST purchase in their lifetime, if anything I expect them to be extra aware.

Ok that’s the problem then. If buyers and sellers don’t know they exist that is a problem with communication. This is for most people the largest transaction they will ever make. To not inform your clients of the basic framework of a transaction should be literally an arrestable offense.

I just don’t believe that there are that many people that are that fundamentally misinformed.

Also, if you otherwise were to list someone at $995,000, sellers aren’t suddenly going to price it at $975,000 if the market still supports that price point. Since this hasn’t played out yet we don’t know what the effects of decoupling will be. Perhaps it’ll get unserious buyers out of the market, because they might have to pay the buyer agents out of pocket regardless of whether they buy a house or not.

Depends where you are. I can only speak on the Bay Area. Prices don’t come down across the board. That’s a misconception. Buyers are just more selective, but the good homes are still getting bid up. The marginal ones that otherwise wouldn’t been bought in a better market are sitting around longer.

The seller pays the commission. If you decouple it, the list price will still stay the same and the seller gets more money. So, then how do you propose the buyer agent gets compensated in this scenario?

I think what is tough for a lot people is working with someone they can trust. Someone who has the character, and also the competence to deal with issues as they arise. I’ll be the first to say that there’s plenty of agents that have shortcomings in at least one of those departments.

This is why word of mouth referrals is still so powerful. If you ask your best friend and they give you a name they trust, as an agent you’re already like 90% of the way there.

I would like to understand your point then.

If your point is that some agents aren’t advocating as hard for the best possible deal I can certainly accept that. Not everyone negotiates hard.

My point is every deal is very context dependent, and that the often times the client doesn’t have an understanding of what the “best deal” is. Sometimes there’s really not much to negotiate over.

I think you misread my comment. The decision is with the client. The point is do you want a yes man or someone who would actually push back? And sometimes during the course of that conversation the client may come around to the agents perspective.

In any case though, I’m not trying to convince you. People generally have their minds made up already.

My point is that the agent repping themselves don’t have to go through all that. They also generally know more than the average client, and use that knowledge to their advantage. I would actually be stunned if the average agent repping themselves would’ve achieve a higher outcome than repping the average client.

You ever consider that the agent doesn’t need to go back to their client to decide what their next move would be? And that can be quite liberating? Many times the agent has their advice that is at odds with what the client wants to do. Does a good agent simply do what the client wants or do they keep going back and forth because the agent knows what’s right, despite the clients feelings? That happens a lot. Like all the time.

How do you know what the best deal possible is? Like really? At some point you’d have to decide whether you want the house or squeeze out another couple thousand dollars. And you have no consideration of what it might be like for the other party. Everytime you go back to the sellers for a concession is a chance for them to tell you to fuck off.

You want to buy a house, and hire an agent. I’m assuming the agent is also going to be trying to help you buy a house. Where are you misaligned?

Short answer: the seller is not your friend. It makes more sense when you look at it that way.

Yeah, but if someone else is willing to, why stop them? It’s their money, and their choice. Have you considered that maybe the buyers know full well what the risks are? Most homes in the Bay Area often already have inspections done and provided as part of the disclosure package. The point is to remove a negotiating chip from the table and friction from what is generally a pretty high stress transaction for the parties involved. The seller’s agent is doing their job, and it’s part of the buyer’s agent job to explain the competitive landscape. Once the sellers choose a buyer, the buyer has the control, and the more contingencies are involved the more opportunity they have to negotiate a lower price. As a seller, you want to avoid as many of those points as possible. I understand from a buyers standpoint it can be frustrating that you feel sort of powerless, because that’s the point. Not all markets are like this, so there’s plenty of examples where you can otherwise use contingencies.

Why not?

Steve thought Jonathan Mingo was a DAWG. Right now he’s still a puppy.

At least in the Bay Area, often times the rent you could get for the house wouldn’t cover the mortgage, or would have very slim profit margins. Then you layer on the risk that a tenant may cause issues, or lose their jobs, and stop paying rent. Or even if they leave, the amount of time and money it’ll take to turn the unit and re-rent again. This doesn’t even factor in the tenant friendly laws in some areas that could prevent you from being able to move back into your own house.