What Do People Really Want In Real Estate Agent

[jscarbor]

I'm a very small builder of townhomes inside the loop. I am currently working with a real estate agent to sell my homes. He seems to do a good job at selling the homes and I am grateful for that. In the end he makes about the same amount of money as I do on many houses, for that I am a little troubled. He doesn't do much advertising and his website is ok. I'm guessing he gets calls from signs and HAR. I'm thinking of forming my own little butique real estate office to take care of my houses as well as the publics needs. Now, there are already too many realtors out there that essentially do the same thing. Are they taking care of what you as a consumer really want? What does the consumer want?

Some things I am kicking around:

Reduced fee listings to go along with full service listings.

Special buyer incentives in lieu of full listing fee.

Weekly activity report on your listing emailed.

Weekly distribution of property flyers.

Access to many subcontractors and an idea of what things should cost.

1 hour consult with interior designer if requested.

1 Hour consultation of materials prices.

Pay for closing cost of buyer if representing buyer.

More incentives if using said company to buy one of my homes.

You get the idea. Is this what people want? Is it different?

What can the realtor industry do better?

[jm1fd]

What can the realtor industry do better?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Get rid of the Realtors, and commissions, and morph into a centralized online listing database, where you get a listing put in for a flat fee, then a-la-carte services on top of that...like professional assistance determining what to price a home for, staging, lawyer referrals for closing, remodeling contractors, inspectors, etc.

[jscarbor]

Get rid of the Realtors, and commissions, and morph into a centralized online listing database, where you get a listing put in for a flat fee, then a-la-carte services on top of that...like professional assistance determining what to price a home for, staging, lawyer referrals for closing, remodeling contractors, inspectors, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't that what For Sale By Owner does?

[jm1fd]

Isn't that what For Sale By Owner does?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but they don't have crap as far as volume of listings is concerned.

[jscarbor]

I wonder why they dont have volume? They do plenty of advertising for their service.

I wouldn't mind providing a listing service with limited a la cart service. I don't want to get into a deal where someone has the choice of picking 20 different things. My initial thought was to provide 3 different services, all of which give something back to the customer one way or another. 1 would be a listing service, the next would be listing service with additional help ie listing realtor showing, flyer production, taking phone calls and feature on web site and 3rd would be full brokerage.

Anyone else want to chime in?

[Parrothead]

I don't know why this wouldn't work for you, but keep in mind that most new home buyers are bringing in their own representation--which you STILL will have to pay for.

[jscarbor]

I don't know why this wouldn't work for you, but keep in mind that most new home buyers are bringing in their own representation--which you STILL will have to pay for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No doubt some people will bring there own rep in if buying one of my houses or listings and I would welcome that and I would also make Sellers aware that it is a good idea to make that available to the market. If the service is good enough though, I think people could see the value of using our company and foregoing representation by their own realtor even when buying one of my homes or an existing one becuase of the extra services and incentives. Many, not all Realtors, that represent Buyers really don't provide that much service to the buyer do they? The good ones are worth it generally. But do theyn (buyer) have one of the good ones? Market knowledge is probably the biggest service they provide? Obviously there is more but...

Thanks for info. Keep it coming. I want to try and put something together that is meaningful and obviously profitable.

[pineda]

foregoing representation by their own realtor even when buying one of my homes or an existing one becuase of the extra services and incentives.

Realtors protect the buyers interests, whose interests will you be protecting......

[uncertaintraveler]

Realtors protect the buyers interests, whose interests will you be protecting......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not so sure about that...the one thing discussed often in law school (if I recall correctly) was that agents, regardless of who they were termed to represent, actually represent the seller.

Back to the main question....if I am reading it correctly, I think it makes sense for you to set up a shop to sell your own development, but why would I want to use your services (as a relator) if I am looking to buy a place that you don't build? Personally, if I knew that my relator (or relator's company) sold homes and also built homes, I'd have serious concerns about their ability to present unbiased and unconflicted information to me. Likewise, why would I want to list my place with you? When you are trying to sell your own properties, how are you going to sell mine too without having some possible conflicts of interest? After all, when you have your own dog in the hunt, why should someone believe you will look after their own dog too?

[pineda]

I thought Realtors protected the interests of the one who came to them. If the seller contracted their services, then that's the one they look after. If the buyer contracts them as a "buyer's agent", than the buyer is the one they look after. What I would want most out of any Realtor: accessibility (answer the phone calls personally, don't send me to voice mail hell), experience (know what you're doing, that's way too much at stake money-wise and there's lot of legal mumbo-jumbo to protect everyone in the deal except me, so know what's going on paperwork-wise), and a friendly disposition (don't try to impress me with how many people you're working with on other deals and how busy you are, the only one that counts is MINE).

[Parrothead]

I'm not so sure about that...the one thing discussed often in law school (if I recall correctly) was that agents, regardless of who they were termed to represent, actually represent the seller.

That is only in certain circumstances and usually when dealing with other brokerages--not builders.

A realtor will have the customer sign a buyer's agreement, upon doing so that customer becomes a client and the agent's fiduciary duties are solely in the best interest of the buyer. Even without signing an agreement, Texas has something called Implied agency--which is a little touchy in a lawsuit--but still protects the buyer.

Pineda is right, the Realtor represents the interests of the buyer. A builder's realtor only represents a builder's interests--which can be vastly different from a buyer's.

[kjb434]

I agree with pineda. Also, I would always make it a point that the buyers agent and the sellers agent aren't from the same agency. Just to make sure that they may talk outside of the deal.

I my case I bought new construction. I got a good friend who is a realtor mostly to help me in the contract and closing process. He got me out of paying title fees which were over $1000. The builder will only pay for your title fees if you use their mortgage company. My realtor got them to change the contract so that they pay for it regardless of what mortgage company I choose. Luckily only the sales person wasn't a strong enough argue to defend the builder and gave in. Then the president of the company signed off on the contract. When we went to closing they tried to make up pay for the title and my realtor went in for the attack. I happy I had him for the process. I'll use him on my next home if I decided to move.

[jscarbor]

Realtors protect the buyers interests, whose interests will you be protecting......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Buyer agents should and usually do protect the Buyers interest. As a Realtor though, no matter who you represent you must treat both parties fairly. Does it always happen that way, no. In the event someone wanted or needed a Realtor they would be more than welcome. In the event a person (buyer) was confident in their ability to buy a home without a Realtor, my office would be willing to let go of some of that commission that would normally go to buyer's agent. Of course my Realtor represents me not the buyer but they still have to treat fairly. It would be up to the person deciding not to use the Realtor to negotiate certain items. In order to make the process more fair I would be willing to give people a flier (unless there is some law saying you can't do that) that states the items that builder/seller would pay for and what the buyer would pay for. Almost like an estimate a mortgage broker has to give you.

[jscarbor]

I'm not so sure about that...the one thing discussed often in law school (if I recall correctly) was that agents, regardless of who they were termed to represent, actually represent the seller. 

Back to the main question....if I am reading it correctly, I think it makes sense for you to set up a shop to sell your own development, but why would I want to use your services (as a relator) if I am looking to buy a place that you don't build?  Personally, if I knew that my relator (or relator's company) sold homes and also built homes, I'd have serious concerns about their ability to present unbiased and unconflicted information to me. Likewise, why would I want to list my place with you? When you are trying to sell your own properties, how are you going to sell mine too without having some possible conflicts of interest? After all, when you have your own dog in the hunt, why should someone believe you will look after their own dog too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First off I don't think I will personally be selling the homes. That being said, I don't really do enough volume right now where 1. a realtor could make a living on my projects alone. Granted this type of relationship might be tough so maybe it wont work in the end but my thoughts were people would still want to use us because of are willingness to be flexible on compensation along with some of the other incentives we would give.

As far as conflicts of interest go? I would think the Realtor would try and sell all the houses they had. Many Realtors today have reltionships with builders already but they still are able to sell other houses. Its not that different is it?

[jscarbor]

I thought Realtors protected the interests of the one who came to them. If the seller contracted their services, then that's the one they look after. If the buyer contracts them as a "buyer's agent", than the buyer is the one they look after. What I would want most out of any Realtor: accessibility (answer the phone calls personally, don't send me to voice mail hell), experience (know what you're doing, that's way too much at stake money-wise and there's lot of legal mumbo-jumbo to protect everyone in the deal except me, so know what's going on paperwork-wise), and a friendly disposition (don't try to impress me with how many people you're working with on other deals and how busy you are, the only one that counts is MINE).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with all of that although someties voicemail is unavoidable. One exception to your comments is I don't think the Realtor should be giving any advice on the legal matters.

[Parrothead]

I agree that a Realtor should not give legal advice in any case. That being said, I think what Pineda was referring to was the contract. In that case, it is precisely what a Realtor is there for, to explain the legalese in the contract.

[jscarbor]

I agree that a Realtor should not give legal advice in any case.  That being said, I think what Pineda was referring to was the contract.  In that case, it is precisely what a Realtor is there for, to explain the legalese in the contract.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm pretty sure that is giving legal advice and I am certainly sure that is not what a Realtor is for? I wouldn't want to explain what the contract says. In fact I have someones real estate books around here and will see if I can look it up.

[pineda]

Realtors have to, by law, take courses on Contracts and Legal Issues, just to become a Realtor, in order to be able to understand what is in the contracts and to best represent the interests of their clients. This would necessitate them actually explaining what is in those contracts. Some persons decide to forego the use of a Realtor and instead bring a lawyer qualified in Real Estate Contracts instead. Maybe you'd rather pay for the services of a lawyer than a Realtor, but they probably charge by the hour, not just a commission at the end of the deal.

[jscarbor]

Realtors have to, by law, take courses on Contracts and Legal Issues, just to become a Realtor, in order to be able to understand what is in the contracts and to best represent the interests of their clients. This would necessitate them actually explaining what is in those contracts. Some persons decide to forego the use of a Realtor and instead bring a lawyer qualified in Real Estate Contracts instead. Maybe you'd rather pay for the services of a lawyer than a Realtor, but they probably charge by the hour, not just a commission at the end of the deal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes they take a Contracts Course, I still don't think, I may be wrong though, that Realtors can not explain the legaleze of a contract. I'll see if I can find the contracts course.

[uncertaintraveler]

First off I don't think I will personally be selling the homes.

As far as conflicts of interest go? I would think the Realtor would try and sell all the houses they had. Many Realtors today have reltionships with builders already but they still are able to sell other houses. Its not that different is it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but (again, from your first post) it appears that your boutique realtor shop would be a wholly-owned subsidiary, or at least a branch of your business. That is where the potential conflicts-of-interest lie. Often times, being a wholly owned affliate requires that you must go way beyond what an "unowned" affiliate is required to do, sometimes to the detriment of the wholly-owned affiliate's interests.

Lastly, I'd like to note that many realtors may have relationships with builders, but they aren't owned by them. At least, not literally....

[uncertaintraveler]

I still don't think, I may be wrong though, that Realtors can not explain the legaleze of a contract.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also...filing out a real estate contract constitutes the practice of law. I don't have the official State Bar citation for this rule, but I know it exists, or at least it used to---the Bar may have changed their position on this.

So, technically, not only should a realtor not explain the legaleze of the contract, they can't fill it out either!

[jscarbor]

Also...filing out a real estate contract constitutes the practice of law. I don't have the official State Bar citation for this rule, but I know it exists, or at least it used to---the Bar may have changed their position on this.

So, technically, not only should a realtor not explain the legaleze of the contract, they can't fill it out either!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually realtors are allowed if Im not mistaken to fill out promulgated forms. They are not supposed to strike anything from the contract though. The buyer/seller on the other hand can strike out items if they wish.

[dalparadise]

Also...filing out a real estate contract constitutes the practice of law. I don't have the official State Bar citation for this rule, but I know it exists, or at least it used to---the Bar may have changed their position on this.

So, technically, not only should a realtor not explain the legaleze of the contract, they can't fill it out either!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is why Realtors are licensed -- to provide a governing body for solving disputes in contracts. Laws in real estate change yearly and all Realtors and Brokers are required to take continuing education specifically to address these changes. Lawyers -- unless they specialize in real estate -- are usually well behind the curve in terms of training in this area. They are, however, quite capable of deciphering the contracts and addendums involved. So, it's your choice.

If you want someone who'll do all the things it takes to both find the perfect place for you and work the system to get you the best deal, a Realtor is unbeatable. A lawyer is still a good idea, if you just want to make sure all the Ts are crossed. They are not mutually exclusive.

Discussions like this reinforce the need for Realtors, in my opinion. People like to dismiss their value, because they are well compensated for seemingly easy work. It is not easy and if you have a good Realtor, you have a partner who will be invaluable in your real estate business dealings. If you have someone who's just sending you listings and showing up for closing, you're not getting your money's worth.

I used to be a Realtor and took a lot of pride in my work. I did things no software program or do-it-yourself kit could possibly do for my clients. And, guess what? several of my best clients were lawyers, perfectly capable of doing the work themselves. I proved my worth to them and offered smart real estate advice to them. They got their money's worth.

[jscarbor]

[Lastly, I'd like to note that many realtors may have relationships with builders, but they aren't owned by them. At least, not literally....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right, they are not owned by the Builder but they do have to put the Builders interest above the Buyers. This is one of the reasons I wanted to control that process a little more. My Realtor got me deals from buyers who did not use a realtor that I personally knew were not great deals. I would have given them more then he gave them. He was looking after me and himself of course. And for that he was paid very well. I guess I really can't complain. However, if the Buyer later on feels, maybe this Realtor (and be default me) didn't give me a good deal then my guess is they wouldn't want to work with me/us again.

On selling other homes besides mine, I guess some people might not like that. I know in college I worked for a guy that built a few homes a year and also had a Real estate brokerage firm. It worked well for him, but that was a relatively small town compared to Houston. I can see where people, especially in Houston would be a little less trustworthy. I wasn't even thinking about that, I was only thinking about what great service I would train people to give. I'm glad others showed me what else I needed to look at.

My goals for setting something like this up were to

1. Have more control. Not in the sence I want to steer (bad word in real estate) people in this direction or that direction, but more, I want to make sure these people are customers again.

2. Make some money of course.

3. Give more value to the customer. In my case, a buyers agent probably can't get their clients that much of better deal than I can. For intance, I'm closing at a Title Company I do business with because 1. I know them and 2. they did the original title work on the property for a reduced fee with the assumption I will use them on the final transaction. So in that case, buyers agent isn't going to get me to change.

[jscarbor]

Actually realtors are allowed if Im not mistaken to fill out promulgated forms. They are not supposed to strike anything from the contract though. The buyer/seller on the other hand can strike out items if they wish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I should have an official ruling on the whole contract deal a little later

[Parrothead]

Okay everyone who is a licensed Texas real estate agent, raise their hand:

(a little joke there)

I think some folks are confusing giving legal advice with sharing information about common real estate law.

Giving legal advice would be like this:

My client walks in and says, "Polly, there's a house that encroaches another property and I am interested, but nervous-- but the seller insists it isn't a problem. I'm thinking about agreeing with him, ignoring the city code and standards for this because I heard they can't do anything to me, what do you think I should do?"

Legally, I cannot tell him what to do. That would be considered giving legal advice. What I can tell him is what the city requires for encroachments and easements. I cannot tell him to go ahead with one decision or another. I will also tell him he should probably contact an attorney about such matters.

I can, however, dissolve our contract if he chooses to do something illegal of which I am aware.

The 11th edition of Modern Real Estate Practices in Texas defines Real Estate Law and an agent's role as such:

"The purchase of real estate is and entirely different type of transaction from the purchase of personal property such as groceries, clothing, fuel, automobiles, or television sets. Although every type of sales transaction creates a change of ownership involving certain relatively simple legal problems, even the simplest of real estate transactions brings into play a body of complex laws. Real estate brokers and agents must have a broad understanding of law and how various laws affect real estate activities. However, if legal questions or problems arise, the real estate practicioner MUST advise the parties to consult an attorney, preferably one who specializes in real estate law."

Hope that helps clear any misunderstandings up. Again, everything pineda and dalparadise have said has been 100% correct. Also, we as agents are absolutely allowed and obligated to explain a contract to a client--in fact, we are legally bound by Texas law to do so.

[pineda]

Well most real estate agents are former sorority girls who couldn't get hired in the Pharmaceutical sales industry

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that just now!

[jscarbor]

This comes straight from the TREC Rules page. If this isn't what I was expressing then I'm sorry, it is exactly what I meant to say.

© A licensee may not practice law, offer, give nor attempt to give advice, directly or indirectly; the licensee may not act as a public conveyancer nor give advice or opinions as to the legal effect of any contracts or other such instruments which may affect the title to real estate; the licensee may not give opinions concerning the status or validity of title to real estate; and the licensee may not attempt to prevent nor in any manner whatsoever discourage any principal to a real estate transaction from employing a lawyer. However, nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the licensee's fiduciary obligation to disclose to the licensee's principals all pertinent facts which are within the knowledge of the licensee, including such facts which might affect the status of or title to real estate.

After reading this you can certainly see where trying to explain, in-depth, a contract, could get hairy. Atleast I could.

[rps324]

When people start acting rational and reasonable about buying and selling their homes, then maybe we can do away with the agents. From what I have seen first hand, the chances of that are very slim and it will take the agents to keep buyers and sellers from throttling each other.

[jscarbor]

Summary of what people want:

Get rid of the Realtors, and commissions, and morph into a centralized online listing database, where you get a listing put in for a flat fee, then a-la-carte services on top of that...like professional assistance determining what to price a home for, staging, lawyer referrals for closing, remodeling contractors, inspectors, etc.

accessibility (answer the phone calls personally, don't send me to voice mail hell), experience

And don't hire former soriority girls who can't sell drugs that have the audacity to drive a nice car and wear professional clothes.