RE/MAX: Is it actually worth the money? (Fixing a broken model)

silentridge3 said:Where on earth am I "telling someone what to write in their ad"?

I’m talking about much more fundamental issues here, specifically regarding the totally broken business model—the way they handle billing—of agencies like RE/MAX. It’s almost like if a bar owner decided to give away every single beer—Bud Light, Coors, Miller... whatever—for free, but then charged an insane premium for just one specific brand, say, a Heineken. And then, just to make up for all the money lost on those free beers, they’d charge $300 for that Heineken. Just because you might find some person who, for whatever reason, decides to buy that Heineken for $300 doesn't actually make that price "realistic," nor does it make it reasonable that they had to subsidize all those other beers at $0.00.

As for this whole concept of a "realistic price"...

1. I’ve heard and read quite a bit that apartments actually sell for significantly lower amounts than what is listed in the ads. So, by definition, the asking prices in the listings are unrealistic.

2. I’ve also heard and read that real estate in certain parts of America is way overpriced when you look at the analyses and comparisons with other countries in Europe.

3. In countries where the real estate market is actually well-regulated, people know exactly what things are worth over the long term, which lets a person plan their life using property as a sort of "currency." The "flow"—you know, the volume of transactions—is much higher there precisely because everything is transparent and built on long-term trust. Here in America, most people don't have any kind of transaction flow at all during their entire lives; it feels like one single transaction is considered the absolute peak of a person's real estate journey.

If things functioned differently—if the listed prices were actually grounded in reality—people would be buying and selling a lot more frequently. Sales would increase because more buyers would actually agree to the prices, and sellers wouldn't be stuck waiting forever for some buyer willing to pay an astronomical, unrealistic amount. People would have more freedom to organize their lives. You’d buy a studio in your college years, sell it one autumn, and within fifteen days, buy a two-bedroom. When kids come along, you sell the two-bedroom and within a month, you have a house. When the kids move out, you downsize back to a two-bedroom, and so on. All of this works perfectly fine for the average person if the market is stable and realistic.

But here, only a tiny minority are actually buying and selling. Life can't really flow normally if you lose five full years of your life between selling one place and buying the next because of unrealistic pricing and a stagnant market. And honestly, part of that mess is definitely due to the flawed way these real estate agencies operate.

You've got it wrong; prices aren't significantly lower, just slightly lower. Anyone who is serious about buying will find a way to buy.

What people think doesn't really matter as long as they manage to pull in close enough to the asking price.

I disagree. There are always fluctuations in value because there are just too many moving parts involved.

And you could technically do that today, too. The difference is that you'd be looking for a place for peanuts.

Nancy Bishop4 said:You've got it wrong; prices aren't significantly lower, just slightly lower. Anyone who is serious about buying will find a way to buy.

What people think doesn't really matter as long as they manage to pull in close enough to the asking price.

I disagree. There are always fluctuations in value because there are just too many moving parts involved.

And you could technically do that today, too. The difference is that you'd be looking for a place for peanuts.

Look, if an apartment is listed at $150,000 but ends up selling for $120,000, then calling that "slightly lower" is just... well, it's a stretch. That’s not a minor adjustment; that’s an unrealistic asking price.

Most buyers who actually have $120,000 in their pocket—and yes, they *want* to buy—aren't even going to bother looking at a listing priced at $150,000. So, they certainly aren't going to pay the full $150,000.

Nancy Bishop4 said:You've got it wrong; prices aren't significantly lower, just slightly lower. Anyone who is serious about buying will find a way to buy.

What people think doesn't really matter as long as they manage to pull in close enough to the asking price.

I disagree. There are always fluctuations in value because there are just too many moving parts involved.

And you could technically do that today, too. The difference is that you'd be looking for a place for peanuts.

If they walk away with $120,000, they didn't get anywhere near what they were asking for ($150,000), I guess.

Nancy Bishop4 said:You've got it wrong; prices aren't significantly lower, just slightly lower. Anyone who is serious about buying will find a way to buy.

What people think doesn't really matter as long as they manage to pull in close enough to the asking price.

I disagree. There are always fluctuations in value because there are just too many moving parts involved.

And you could technically do that today, too. The difference is that you'd be looking for a place for peanuts.

That’s true, I suppose. But in America, one of the major things holding the market back is the flawed business model used by RE/MAX agencies.

Nancy Bishop4 said:You've got it wrong; prices aren't significantly lower, just slightly lower. Anyone who is serious about buying will find a way to buy.

What people think doesn't really matter as long as they manage to pull in close enough to the asking price.

I disagree. There are always fluctuations in value because there are just too many moving parts involved.

And you could technically do that today, too. The difference is that you'd be looking for a place for peanuts.

If I want to buy a place that’s realistically worth $120,000, and I want to pay, you know, exactly $120,000, then that isn't exactly "peanuts," is it?

PS: Instead of getting bogged down with me and trying to defend current prices, maybe we could actually stick to the topic? Do you honestly believe that the way American real estate agencies operate and charge fees right now is justified? What does being a real estate agent actually mean to you—what do they actually do, and what exactly are we paying for?

The idea of charging a fee based on $83 just for the privilege of touring an apartment is an absolute disaster.
Generally speaking, I have little patience for working with agencies, and I find myself agreeing that their service is often subpar while their commissions are frankly excessive. In my view, whoever chooses to hire an agency should be the one footing the bill. Why on earth should I, as a buyer, be expected to hand over 2% of the purchase price to an agency simply because the owner was too lazy to handle the sale themselves? If they want that level of assistance, let them cover the cost.
When I was purchasing my own place, the only professional I hired was an attorney to draft the sales contract (and even that was only necessary because I was buying from four different owners, which made the whole situation rather complicated). I managed all the rest of the paperwork on my own, and honestly, I didn't feel any need for an agency at all.

Roger Garcia9 said:The idea of charging a fee based on $83 just for the privilege of touring an apartment is an absolute disaster.
Generally speaking, I have little patience for working with agencies, and I find myself agreeing that their service is often subpar while their commissions are frankly excessive. In my view, whoever chooses to hire an agency should be the one footing the bill. Why on earth should I, as a buyer, be expected to hand over 2% of the purchase price to an agency simply because the owner was too lazy to handle the sale themselves? If they want that level of assistance, let them cover the cost.
When I was purchasing my own place, the only professional I hired was an attorney to draft the sales contract (and even that was only necessary because I was buying from four different owners, which made the whole situation rather complicated). I managed all the rest of the paperwork on my own, and honestly, I didn't feel any need for an agency at all.

That number is just a flat estimate, so the actual price could swing around.

What I’m trying to get at is that if a potential buyer actually goes out of their way to schedule a viewing, I guess the agent should probably be compensated for that service at some kind of reasonable rate.

Right now, agents are basically dragging hundreds of potential buyers through apartments for absolutely nothing. They’re wasting their time, burning gas, wearing down the soles of their shoes—they're working, you know? And they're doing it all for free.

And then, after spending three months showing properties to a hundred different people without getting a dime, they end up taking a massive, unrealistic $3,000 or $4,000 cut from the one single buyer who actually closes the deal—for a service that the buyer usually didn't even ask for in the first place, which was the exact same walkthrough. If you think $83 is too much for a simple viewing, then it’s definitely $5000 too much for that very same viewing.

I honestly don't know if any other profession uses such a nonsensical billing model, a model where there isn't even a basic principle of "value for money" involved.

silentridge3 said:That number is just a flat estimate, so the actual price could swing around.

What I’m trying to get at is that if a potential buyer actually goes out of their way to schedule a viewing, I guess the agent should probably be compensated for that service at some kind of reasonable rate.

Right now, agents are basically dragging hundreds of potential buyers through apartments for absolutely nothing. They’re wasting their time, burning gas, wearing down the soles of their shoes—they're working, you know? And they're doing it all for free.

And then, after spending three months showing properties to a hundred different people without getting a dime, they end up taking a massive, unrealistic $3,000 or $4,000 cut from the one single buyer who actually closes the deal—for a service that the buyer usually didn't even ask for in the first place, which was the exact same walkthrough. If you think $83 is too much for a simple viewing, then it’s definitely $5000 too much for that very same viewing.

I honestly don't know if any other profession uses such a nonsensical billing model, a model where there isn't even a basic principle of "value for money" involved.

What kind of fool would pay $83 just to look at an apartment.🤦
That $3,000 isn't for the walkthrough; it's for actually finding the buyer or the property in the first place.

Nancy Bishop4 said:What kind of fool would pay $83 just to look at an apartment.🤦
That $3,000 isn't for the walkthrough; it's for actually finding the buyer or the property in the first place.

🤦

So, I see a listing on a free site like Craigslist, and suddenly...

...according to you...

...I've somehow "already hired an agency to find me a place"?????

When did I ever hire them? How does that even work?

Just to refresh your memory here: real estate agents aren't even going to show you a house (even if you haven't technically hired them yet) until you sign a contract promising to pay them a 1-2% commission once you actually buy the place.

silentridge3 said:🤦

So, I see a listing on a free site like Craigslist, and suddenly...

...according to you...

...I've somehow "already hired an agency to find me a place"?????

When did I ever hire them? How does that even work?

Just to refresh your memory here: real estate agents aren't even going to show you a house (even if you haven't technically hired them yet) until you sign a contract promising to pay them a 1-2% commission once you actually buy the place.

Down in Cleveland, every agency charges 3% plus tax, and they hit both the buyer and the seller with that same amount... honestly, it's almost impossible to find a place that isn't through an agency (like 99.9% of everything on Craigslist is through an agency)... so you guys in Chicago should enjoy it while it lasts, because it definitely won't stay this way once agencies take over the whole market in a few years.

The only way to stop agencies is if sellers just flat-out ignore them, but that's never gonna happen with our mindset. I mean, why wouldn't someone hire an agency to sell their place when it saves them so much time and stress? And at the end of the day, the buyer ends up footing the bill for that whole 6 or 7% anyway.

I’ve been hunting for an apartment for 8 months now, and man, I am going hard at it... checked out 45 places already (42 through RE/MAX) and I’m spending like 2-3 hours every single day scrolling through Craigslist and agency sites... out of those 42 RE/MAX listings, one specific agent showed me 35 of them. He was actually the only one who seemed even remotely professional, mostly because he’d shoot me a text about a place the second he got it before it even hit the official sites. Honestly, the only thing I can say good about him is he's always reachable by phone or email, and since I don't have a car, he’d actually meet me right outside my office after work to drive me to viewings. So if I don't end up buying from him, he's basically losing money just to help me, but hey, I guess that's just part of the job

So this one time, I went to see a place where the price had just dropped by $10,000... it was a 65 m2 unit on the 6th floor. We both step into the elevator, and get this—there's already an agent from a totally different firm with her whole family in there, they're looking at the exact same place😕 and she tells us we have to wait until they're done because the elevator is full. My agent looks at me and says, "Let's just hurry up the stairs so we beat them to it." I was being naive, mind you—it was maybe my 2nd or 3rd viewing back then, and I figured maybe this place was seriously amazing or something😁 so I just followed his lead. Sure enough, we beat them, ring the bell, and the owners open the door and you won't believe it, but there's yet another agent from a third agency with a three-person family inside😵—plus that first lady with her two kids. There we were, 11 people crammed into a tiny 65 square meter apartment just trying to look around😁... within minutes, I realized this place wasn't for me and told my agent. Meanwhile, he notices the other group is heading out, so he literally starts pushing me toward the elevator, telling me we gotta move so we can beat them back to the lift😲... honestly, it immediately reminded me of some junkies fighting over a beer can at a bus station at 3 AM... total nightmare. This is what passes for "professionalism" and "expertise" these days.

After that disaster, I really hoped I wouldn't have to deal with agencies anymore, but unfortunately, that's impossible in a city like Chicago. They literally control every listing, and a decent place pops up maybe once every two months and gets snapped up in 2-3 days, naturally through an agency...

brightharbor20 said:Down in Cleveland, every agency charges 3% plus tax, and they hit both the buyer and the seller with that same amount... honestly, it's almost impossible to find a place that isn't through an agency (like 99.9% of everything on Craigslist is through an agency)... so you guys in Chicago should enjoy it while it lasts, because it definitely won't stay this way once agencies take over the whole market in a few years.

The only way to stop agencies is if sellers just flat-out ignore them, but that's never gonna happen with our mindset. I mean, why wouldn't someone hire an agency to sell their place when it saves them so much time and stress? And at the end of the day, the buyer ends up footing the bill for that whole 6 or 7% anyway.

Well, if we're being honest, they basically already have.

In Chicago, there’s such a massive amount of real estate floating around, and these agencies just constantly "flood" the listing sites, intentionally creating this illusion that there are fifty thousand different properties available. In reality, a homeowner hires one agency to handle the sale (if they hire anyone at all), but then some other agency just goes along and copies that exact same ad to "sell" the same property themselves. So, you end up with the same apartment listed by five different agencies. My family was selling an apartment once, and there were at least five separate ads for that exact same place on Craigslist. It gets even weirder—sometimes even a year after the place has been sold, some agency is still out there "selling" it.

What’s actually being achieved by this constant "flooding," by clogging up Craigslist with tens of thousands of agency listings? I guess it's just making sure private listings (the non-agency ones) stay totally invisible; you simply can't find them, they're like looking for a needle in a haystack. It would be really something if Craigslist just separated private ads from agency ones...

brightharbor20 said:Down in Cleveland, every agency charges 3% plus tax, and they hit both the buyer and the seller with that same amount... honestly, it's almost impossible to find a place that isn't through an agency (like 99.9% of everything on Craigslist is through an agency)... so you guys in Chicago should enjoy it while it lasts, because it definitely won't stay this way once agencies take over the whole market in a few years.

The only way to stop agencies is if sellers just flat-out ignore them, but that's never gonna happen with our mindset. I mean, why wouldn't someone hire an agency to sell their place when it saves them so much time and stress? And at the end of the day, the buyer ends up footing the bill for that whole 6 or 7% anyway.

Exactly. That’s why I think my model would work a lot better. If a seller just paid an agency a small monthly fee, say $17, just to keep the listing active, then the agency could stop being so aggressive during the actual transaction; they’d still be making money, just in smaller increments. And the seller might actually stop and think about whether it’s worth "selling" (advertising) a place for three years at some delusional, sky-high price without ever actually closing the deal—you know, thinking, "maybe some rich person or someone crazy will eventually stumble upon it and buy it at this ridiculous price"—when they realize they’ve spent $600 over those three years just on advertising...

brightharbor20 said:I’ve been hunting for an apartment for 8 months now, and man, I am going hard at it... checked out 45 places already (42 through RE/MAX) and I’m spending like 2-3 hours every single day scrolling through Craigslist and agency sites... out of those 42 RE/MAX listings, one specific agent showed me 35 of them. He was actually the only one who seemed even remotely professional, mostly because he’d shoot me a text about a place the second he got it before it even hit the official sites. Honestly, the only thing I can say good about him is he's always reachable by phone or email, and since I don't have a car, he’d actually meet me right outside my office after work to drive me to viewings. So if I don't end up buying from him, he's basically losing money just to help me, but hey, I guess that's just part of the job

So this one time, I went to see a place where the price had just dropped by $10,000... it was a 65 m2 unit on the 6th floor. We both step into the elevator, and get this—there's already an agent from a totally different firm with her whole family in there, they're looking at the exact same place😕 and she tells us we have to wait until they're done because the elevator is full. My agent looks at me and says, "Let's just hurry up the stairs so we beat them to it." I was being naive, mind you—it was maybe my 2nd or 3rd viewing back then, and I figured maybe this place was seriously amazing or something😁 so I just followed his lead. Sure enough, we beat them, ring the bell, and the owners open the door and you won't believe it, but there's yet another agent from a third agency with a three-person family inside😵—plus that first lady with her two kids. There we were, 11 people crammed into a tiny 65 square meter apartment just trying to look around😁... within minutes, I realized this place wasn't for me and told my agent. Meanwhile, he notices the other group is heading out, so he literally starts pushing me toward the elevator, telling me we gotta move so we can beat them back to the lift😲... honestly, it immediately reminded me of some junkies fighting over a beer can at a bus station at 3 AM... total nightmare. This is what passes for "professionalism" and "expertise" these days.

After that disaster, I really hoped I wouldn't have to deal with agencies anymore, but unfortunately, that's impossible in a city like Chicago. They literally control every listing, and a decent place pops up maybe once every two months and gets snapped up in 2-3 days, naturally through an agency...

Yeah, it feels like things in Cleveland are starting to mirror places like Manhattan or even Munich—there’s just this massive shortage of apartments everywhere. And, honestly, if you think about it, an agency doesn't really have to break a sweat; they basically pocket a huge chunk of change the second someone decides to put their place on the market.
Chicago is a whole different story, though, because there are actually plenty of empty units sitting around, plus there's this much higher demand for people shuffling things around—you know, selling a house to grab an apartment, or maybe offloading a big place to pick up two smaller ones. It’s such a shame the market isn't working more efficiently, where there's a sort of natural "real estate flow" happening. I can't help but feel like part of the mess stems from the agencies themselves and the way their entire business model is set up.

silentridge3 said:Well, if we're being honest, they basically already have.

In Chicago, there’s such a massive amount of real estate floating around, and these agencies just constantly "flood" the listing sites, intentionally creating this illusion that there are fifty thousand different properties available. In reality, a homeowner hires one agency to handle the sale (if they hire anyone at all), but then some other agency just goes along and copies that exact same ad to "sell" the same property themselves. So, you end up with the same apartment listed by five different agencies. My family was selling an apartment once, and there were at least five separate ads for that exact same place on Craigslist. It gets even weirder—sometimes even a year after the place has been sold, some agency is still out there "selling" it.

What’s actually being achieved by this constant "flooding," by clogging up Craigslist with tens of thousands of agency listings? I guess it's just making sure private listings (the non-agency ones) stay totally invisible; you simply can't find them, they're like looking for a needle in a haystack. It would be really something if Craigslist just separated private ads from agency ones...

Exactly. That’s why I think my model would work a lot better. If a seller just paid an agency a small monthly fee, say $17, just to keep the listing active, then the agency could stop being so aggressive during the actual transaction; they’d still be making money, just in smaller increments. And the seller might actually stop and think about whether it’s worth "selling" (advertising) a place for three years at some delusional, sky-high price without ever actually closing the deal—you know, thinking, "maybe some rich person or someone crazy will eventually stumble upon it and buy it at this ridiculous price"—when they realize they’ve spent $600 over those three years just on advertising...

Yeah, it feels like things in Cleveland are starting to mirror places like Manhattan or even Munich—there’s just this massive shortage of apartments everywhere. And, honestly, if you think about it, an agency doesn't really have to break a sweat; they basically pocket a huge chunk of change the second someone decides to put their place on the market.
Chicago is a whole different story, though, because there are actually plenty of empty units sitting around, plus there's this much higher demand for people shuffling things around—you know, selling a house to grab an apartment, or maybe offloading a big place to pick up two smaller ones. It’s such a shame the market isn't working more efficiently, where there's a sort of natural "real estate flow" happening. I can't help but feel like part of the mess stems from the agencies themselves and the way their entire business model is set up.

In Cleveland, that just isn't how things work—or at least, it’s definitely not the norm. Every condo up for sale usually has an exclusive contract with just one agency and the specific agent who first brought it to market. That original agency and agent snag the lion's share of the commission, regardless of who actually closes the deal. Sure, another agent from that same office might sell it, or even someone from a different firm if there’s a "mole" leaking listings between agencies (there's always some mole, right?), but if an outsider sells it, they only get a tiny slice compared to the original finder. It's probably some internal handshake to keep everyone from constant infighting. And in Cleveland, agencies don't just go around ripping off private listings. If a homeowner posts something themselves, agencies will hammer them with calls every single day trying to grab the listing, but if the seller says no, it stays private. It's super rare for them to cave. Honestly, Cleveland is like the most advanced city in the US when it comes to real estate; we're talking over 20 different agencies for a city of 100,000 people, and the big players easily have 30 or 40 agents on staff.

silentridge3 said:Well, if we're being honest, they basically already have.

In Chicago, there’s such a massive amount of real estate floating around, and these agencies just constantly "flood" the listing sites, intentionally creating this illusion that there are fifty thousand different properties available. In reality, a homeowner hires one agency to handle the sale (if they hire anyone at all), but then some other agency just goes along and copies that exact same ad to "sell" the same property themselves. So, you end up with the same apartment listed by five different agencies. My family was selling an apartment once, and there were at least five separate ads for that exact same place on Craigslist. It gets even weirder—sometimes even a year after the place has been sold, some agency is still out there "selling" it.

What’s actually being achieved by this constant "flooding," by clogging up Craigslist with tens of thousands of agency listings? I guess it's just making sure private listings (the non-agency ones) stay totally invisible; you simply can't find them, they're like looking for a needle in a haystack. It would be really something if Craigslist just separated private ads from agency ones...

Exactly. That’s why I think my model would work a lot better. If a seller just paid an agency a small monthly fee, say $17, just to keep the listing active, then the agency could stop being so aggressive during the actual transaction; they’d still be making money, just in smaller increments. And the seller might actually stop and think about whether it’s worth "selling" (advertising) a place for three years at some delusional, sky-high price without ever actually closing the deal—you know, thinking, "maybe some rich person or someone crazy will eventually stumble upon it and buy it at this ridiculous price"—when they realize they’ve spent $600 over those three years just on advertising...

Yeah, it feels like things in Cleveland are starting to mirror places like Manhattan or even Munich—there’s just this massive shortage of apartments everywhere. And, honestly, if you think about it, an agency doesn't really have to break a sweat; they basically pocket a huge chunk of change the second someone decides to put their place on the market.
Chicago is a whole different story, though, because there are actually plenty of empty units sitting around, plus there's this much higher demand for people shuffling things around—you know, selling a house to grab an apartment, or maybe offloading a big place to pick up two smaller ones. It’s such a shame the market isn't working more efficiently, where there's a sort of natural "real estate flow" happening. I can't help but feel like part of the mess stems from the agencies themselves and the way their entire business model is set up.

That's a nice little fantasy you've got going there, but why would anyone actually push for this when everything is running just fine as it is? ...Well, for them, I guess.😁Those agencies have been pocketing that 3% cut forever, and honestly, like 90% of homes sell that way anyway. There's always gonna be suckers buying through them—and hey, I’m the first one in line! I just don't have the damn time to hunt for private listings. It's not like you can find anything decent on Craigslist; it's all just agency ads. If I see a listing with a view from the balcony, I basically have to memorize the skyline, drive around the neighborhood looking for the exact building, and then knock on neighbors' doors asking if anyone knows a place for sale. Out of all the places hitting the market, maybe 10% even show the view, and only like 0.01% of those actually fit what I'm looking for. Who has the time for that kind of detective work?

silentridge3 said:Well, if we're being honest, they basically already have.

In Chicago, there’s such a massive amount of real estate floating around, and these agencies just constantly "flood" the listing sites, intentionally creating this illusion that there are fifty thousand different properties available. In reality, a homeowner hires one agency to handle the sale (if they hire anyone at all), but then some other agency just goes along and copies that exact same ad to "sell" the same property themselves. So, you end up with the same apartment listed by five different agencies. My family was selling an apartment once, and there were at least five separate ads for that exact same place on Craigslist. It gets even weirder—sometimes even a year after the place has been sold, some agency is still out there "selling" it.

What’s actually being achieved by this constant "flooding," by clogging up Craigslist with tens of thousands of agency listings? I guess it's just making sure private listings (the non-agency ones) stay totally invisible; you simply can't find them, they're like looking for a needle in a haystack. It would be really something if Craigslist just separated private ads from agency ones...

Exactly. That’s why I think my model would work a lot better. If a seller just paid an agency a small monthly fee, say $17, just to keep the listing active, then the agency could stop being so aggressive during the actual transaction; they’d still be making money, just in smaller increments. And the seller might actually stop and think about whether it’s worth "selling" (advertising) a place for three years at some delusional, sky-high price without ever actually closing the deal—you know, thinking, "maybe some rich person or someone crazy will eventually stumble upon it and buy it at this ridiculous price"—when they realize they’ve spent $600 over those three years just on advertising...

Yeah, it feels like things in Cleveland are starting to mirror places like Manhattan or even Munich—there’s just this massive shortage of apartments everywhere. And, honestly, if you think about it, an agency doesn't really have to break a sweat; they basically pocket a huge chunk of change the second someone decides to put their place on the market.
Chicago is a whole different story, though, because there are actually plenty of empty units sitting around, plus there's this much higher demand for people shuffling things around—you know, selling a house to grab an apartment, or maybe offloading a big place to pick up two smaller ones. It’s such a shame the market isn't working more efficiently, where there's a sort of natural "real estate flow" happening. I can't help but feel like part of the mess stems from the agencies themselves and the way their entire business model is set up.

It’s not that Cleveland lacks apartments, it’s just that it lacks *good* ones... You can find empty places all day, but they’re all just holes in buildings from 50 or 60 years ago. It's like people don't even get the concept of "renovating"—I'm constantly seeing places that are 30 or 40 years old still in their original state... Plus, some utility monopoly handles the heating in these buildings and winter bills hit $500/month, so obviously nobody wants those... There are tons of sailors and entrepreneurs with serious cash who just snap up all the nice new builds, leaving absolutely nothing for the middle class...

I'm right there with brightharbor20 on this—we went through the exact same headache back in Cleveland while hunting for a place.
I honestly don't get people here in Cleveland who sell their property through an agency... I mean, why just hand over 3%? I'd never hire an agency to handle a sale myself. It feels like trying to find a listing in Cleveland without going through an agency is basically impossible. Even if you're just looking for a rental or a single room, everything goes through the agencies anyway 🤦
I really don't get landlords—they're just cutting into their own profits.

Mark Harris66 said:I'm right there with brightharbor20 on this—we went through the exact same headache back in Cleveland while hunting for a place.
I honestly don't get people here in Cleveland who sell their property through an agency... I mean, why just hand over 3%? I'd never hire an agency to handle a sale myself. It feels like trying to find a listing in Cleveland without going through an agency is basically impossible. Even if you're just looking for a rental or a single room, everything goes through the agencies anyway 🤦
I really don't get landlords—they're just cutting into their own profits.

Actually, you've got it backwards, they aren't losing anything at all... Here's how the game works—a homeowner decides to sell for $100,000. Some agent hears through a friend of a friend that the place is up for grabs, tracks them down, and pitches it like this: "Look, our agency will list this for $115,000. The buyer will try to haggle, so we'll drop it to $110,000 (buyer feels like they won, even though it's way higher than the original price). The buyer pays that 3% fee, which is about $3,500, and you pay your 3% too, but even after that, you still walked away with more than your initial $100,000." So really, it's the buyer paying both commissions, and the seller didn't have to lift a finger because the agency handled everything... Sucks for us buyers, but that's just how it is. Don't see it changing anytime soon.

silentridge3 said:🤦

So, I see a listing on a free site like Craigslist, and suddenly...

...according to you...

...I've somehow "already hired an agency to find me a place"?????

When did I ever hire them? How does that even work?

Just to refresh your memory here: real estate agents aren't even going to show you a house (even if you haven't technically hired them yet) until you sign a contract promising to pay them a 1-2% commission once you actually buy the place.

Is this actually real? Agencies charging buyers commissions? What the hell? Pardon my French.

Is there even a law for this?

If not, people are getting scammed.

Sellers pay the commission. Not the buyers. Look, if I'm selling my house and decide to go with an agency, the agency lists it and finds a buyer—then I pay the agency. What logic is there in making the buyer pay a commission??????????????

Why do sellers even agree to this crap? It just means a huge chunk of potential buyers who might actually want to see the place won't bother because they don't want to (rightfully) pay a fee.

Trust me, this is just another one of those weird American quirks.

I have a question for the group: what exactly stops me from tracking down the owner of a property listed by an agency like RE/MAX? Could I just cut out the middleman and negotiate with them directly? I haven't really dealt with agencies before, so I'm curious about how this works.

The contract the seller signed with RE/MAX prevents them from selling to anyone else—even if they find a buyer themselves, they’re still stuck going through the agency

Christian Miller14 said:The contract the seller signed with RE/MAX prevents them from selling to anyone else—even if they find a buyer themselves, they’re still stuck going through the agency

I've personally tried listing properties through agencies twice before, but I never signed any of those restrictive contracts.
And honestly? I ended up selling without an agency entirely.
If you haven't signed anything binding, finding out who actually owns a listed property is easy enough—especially when we're talking about vacant land.

Besides, I don't see much point in most of these agencies anyway—they mostly just repost everything on Zillow. All that bragging about having listings on ten different sites? I highly doubt half of that is even true.

brightharbor20 said:Actually, you've got it backwards, they aren't losing anything at all... Here's how the game works—a homeowner decides to sell for $100,000. Some agent hears through a friend of a friend that the place is up for grabs, tracks them down, and pitches it like this: "Look, our agency will list this for $115,000. The buyer will try to haggle, so we'll drop it to $110,000 (buyer feels like they won, even though it's way higher than the original price). The buyer pays that 3% fee, which is about $3,500, and you pay your 3% too, but even after that, you still walked away with more than your initial $100,000." So really, it's the buyer paying both commissions, and the seller didn't have to lift a finger because the agency handled everything... Sucks for us buyers, but that's just how it is. Don't see it changing anytime soon.

And then the house just sits there forever because the price is totally inflated and nobody even wants to look at it...

Mark Martin10 said:Is this actually real? Agencies charging buyers commissions? What the hell? Pardon my French.

Is there even a law for this?

If not, people are getting scammed.

Sellers pay the commission. Not the buyers. Look, if I'm selling my house and decide to go with an agency, the agency lists it and finds a buyer—then I pay the agency. What logic is there in making the buyer pay a commission??????????????

Why do sellers even agree to this crap? It just means a huge chunk of potential buyers who might actually want to see the place won't bother because they don't want to (rightfully) pay a fee.

Trust me, this is just another one of those weird American quirks.

Where I live abroad (yeah, yeah, I know, typical thing for someone living overseas to say), the commission is paid by whoever hires the agency.

If I hire an agency to find me a house or an apartment and have them check all the ownership details and everything else, then I'm the one paying the commission. Same goes when I'm selling.

On the other hand, there are specialized websites where only members (agents) can list stuff.

Mark Martin10 said:Is this actually real? Agencies charging buyers commissions? What the hell? Pardon my French.

Is there even a law for this?

If not, people are getting scammed.

Sellers pay the commission. Not the buyers. Look, if I'm selling my house and decide to go with an agency, the agency lists it and finds a buyer—then I pay the agency. What logic is there in making the buyer pay a commission??????????????

Why do sellers even agree to this crap? It just means a huge chunk of potential buyers who might actually want to see the place won't bother because they don't want to (rightfully) pay a fee.

Trust me, this is just another one of those weird American quirks.

Down here, in certain parts of the beautiful US, you find listings for apartments that aren't exactly... overpriced, they're practically floating away because they're so inflated with helium...
and you have to contact whatever number is listed on that page.
Then, some RE/MAX agent from halfway across the country calls you from 311 miles miles away, and they send over that infamous contract where you have to sign saying you'll give them 3% plus tax if the place sells.
Once you handle all that paperwork, they finally give you instructions on how to actually get to the apartment 🤔 and tell you to ring the neighbor's bell
because the owner is a foreigner and isn't around.
Our neighbor didn't even know how to turn the power on or where the breaker box was; he had no clue about anything, and he didn't even have the key to the garage or the storage unit... and that was a whole five-minute showing because he was in such a rush. We had to go back twice more for measurements and inspections, but it was the same thing every single time. The neighbor was clueless, grumpy, and kept rushing us.😠

AND NOW I'M SUPPOSED TO PAY THE AGENCY $3,000 plus tax for what exactly????

Santa Barbara two-story apartment near the beach!
Apartment in a residential building, 1st floor
living area: 70.00 m2
Posted: 09/10/2017

$747026
$325,000

California, Santa Barbara, old town, small 2-story apartment of 35 m2
Apartment in a residential building, 1st floor
living area: 35 m2
Posted: 09/04/2017

$224
$97,000

Krasan apartment on the edge of the old town - Santa Barbara
Apartment in a residential building, 2nd floor
living area: 63 m2
Posted: 09/08/2017

$1128009
$490,000 😲

These prices are actually realistic... I mean, they're just examples, but that's how things go in that city.🙂