two general questions

[zubs]

If there is no law against it, then game on.

This reminds me of the debate of why companies move their manufacturing to China.  It's because all the competitors are doing it and consumers want cheap products.  If USC's not doing it, someone else will.  Might as well make that money.

The last 8 years has shown us the US government condones profit making in ethically grey areas.  And so now our culture will shift to the "I gotta get paid" mentality as long as I break no laws.  This is what happens when people see Mozillo & Corzine walking free.

Personally I would also snipe business from redfin.

 

[socal78]

I understand you guys see it differently but imagine if I asked USC to show me one home, told him I was really interested but then had another agent represent me in the purchase. I'm sure there would be a little "expecation" there.

IHO, I've had dozens of buyers that I showed several homes to that never ended up buying a house through me.  Whether they ended up buying another house with an agent or not buying at all, it doesn't really matter to me.  I don't hold grudges or get bent out of shape like some agents would and I know that I won't close 100% of my buyers...that's just reality.  You win some, you lose some.  Believe it or not, but I actually enjoy showing homes as I learn about neighborhoods and see new floor plans.

I can vouch for Trojan there. The fact is he has taken time out of his really busy day in the past to show me homes when I was in the market to buy, offering even though he knew in all likelihood, I would not be able to close with him. Also times when it was evident I couldn't (like when he suggested looking at Shady Canyon homes... but I didn't want to take up his time, so I politely declined). And that was him going out of his way to offer, not me asking, so it was not an obligated gesture. He doesn't have the whole "What Have You Done For Me Lately" attitude. He's also not a Stage 5 Clinger like a needy girlfriend as some other agents are. He gives the person the breathing room that they sometimes need to collect their thoughts. No pressure to buy, buy, buy!

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Interesting, buyers can use Redfin to show them homes and they can purchase with another agent, but Redfin can't do the reverse.

In all fairness, to me, the agent who shows it, should be the one who gets to represent the buyer... but others feel differently.

What if an agent you are working with for the first time shows you a house and it's the first one you tour with them and it's the first time u are meeting them and they are rude and you get a bad feel about them. Would you still use them to write the offer on what is likely the largest purchase of your life?

There is always an exception, but like bones said, if I intend to use an agent to write an offer for me, I will use that agent to show me the home.

Think about it, if I really want to get value out of that agent, wouldn't I want that agent to at least have seen the home themselves?

I'm not sure what the mindset is of those clients USC mentioned but if it is the biggest purchase of my life, I want that agent who is representing me in the transaction to have been the person to show me the house and walked through it to give me their opinion.

 

[usctrojancpa]

Interesting, buyers can use Redfin to show them homes and they can purchase with another agent, but Redfin can't do the reverse.

In all fairness, to me, the agent who shows it, should be the one who gets to represent the buyer... but others feel differently.

What if an agent you are working with for the first time shows you a house and it's the first one you tour with them and it's the first time u are meeting them and they are rude and you get a bad feel about them. Would you still use them to write the offer on what is likely the largest purchase of your life?

There is always an exception, but like bones said, if I intend to use an agent to write an offer for me, I will use that agent to show me the home.

Think about it, if I really want to get value out of that agent, wouldn't I want that agent to at least have seen the home themselves?

I'm not sure what the mindset is of those clients USC mentioned but if it is the biggest purchase of my life, I want that agent who is representing me in the transaction to have been the person to show me the house and walked through it to give me their opinion.

Different strokes for different folks IHO.  Those clients knew EXACTLY what they wanted and really weren't looking for input in terms of the home selection from me.  Some clients look to me for a lot of feedback and ask a lot of questions, which I'm very happy to share my opinions and knowledge with them.  Others want me to be the deal marker and get them the house they want for the right price.  Every client is different and a good agent will be flexible in tailoring their service to each client's needs. 

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@USC:

I understand what you are saying, but it was qwerty who brought up this whole "largest purchase of your life" argument.

Which brings about another question, do you feel confident writing up offers for homes you did not see yourself? Did you eventually see the house for the inspection or anything else?

 

[usctrojancpa]

If there is no law against it, then game on.

This reminds me of the debate of why companies move their manufacturing to China.  It's because all the competitors are doing it and consumers want cheap products.  If USC's not doing it, someone else will.  Might as well make that money.

The last 8 years has shown us the US government condones profit making in ethically grey areas.  And so now our culture will shift to the "I gotta get paid" mentality as long as I break no laws.  This is what happens when people see Mozillo & Corzine walking free.

Personally I would also snipe business from redfin.

If a potential client comes to me from Redfin or another agent I'm not going to turn them away.  My service and my other skills will be the crucial determinants whether I'm able to earn my keep with them.

 

[usctrojancpa]

@USC:

I understand what you are saying, but it was qwerty who brought up this whole "largest purchase of your life" argument.

Which brings about another question, do you feel confident writing up offers for homes you did not see yourself? Did you eventually see the house for the inspection or anything else?

As long as I know the buyers are 100% certain about the house and have not asked for any of my input then yes I will write up the offer without having seen the home first.  If they ask me for any kind of input, I take it upon myself to go see the home first before I write the offer.  But yes, I have seen all of the resale homes that my buyers eventually bought (either at a 2nd showing with parents or family, during a home inspection, and/or during the final walk through). 

 

[bones]

If there is no law against it, then game on.

This reminds me of the debate of why companies move their manufacturing to China.  It's because all the competitors are doing it and consumers want cheap products.  If USC's not doing it, someone else will.  Might as well make that money.

The last 8 years has shown us the US government condones profit making in ethically grey areas.  And so now our culture will shift to the "I gotta get paid" mentality as long as I break no laws.  This is what happens when people see Mozillo & Corzine walking free.

Personally I would also snipe business from redfin.

If a potential client comes to me from Redfin or another agent I'm not going to turn them away.  My service and my other skills will be the crucial determinants whether I'm able to earn my keep with them.

Just to be clear, I don't think what usc is doing is wrong or not moral. for me, it's the actions of his clients that are "off". They figured out a way to maximize the rebate. And that's what I was referencing when I said they found a "loophole" of sorts.

 

[usctrojancpa]

If there is no law against it, then game on.

This reminds me of the debate of why companies move their manufacturing to China.  It's because all the competitors are doing it and consumers want cheap products.  If USC's not doing it, someone else will.  Might as well make that money.

The last 8 years has shown us the US government condones profit making in ethically grey areas.  And so now our culture will shift to the "I gotta get paid" mentality as long as I break no laws.  This is what happens when people see Mozillo & Corzine walking free.

Personally I would also snipe business from redfin.

If a potential client comes to me from Redfin or another agent I'm not going to turn them away.  My service and my other skills will be the crucial determinants whether I'm able to earn my keep with them.

Just to be clear, I don't think what usc is doing is wrong or not moral. for me, it's the actions of his clients that are "off". They figured out a way to maximize the rebate. And that's what I was referencing when I said they found a "loophole" of sorts.

Not really a loophole when it's fairly known that I've always provided rebates to clients (I'm sure I'm not the only agent that does that).....probably more of a possible opportunity to minimize the total cost of the home.  Again, I have more flexibility with providing rebates because I don't have a commission split with my broker. 

 

[bones]

If there is no law against it, then game on.

This reminds me of the debate of why companies move their manufacturing to China.  It's because all the competitors are doing it and consumers want cheap products.  If USC's not doing it, someone else will.  Might as well make that money.

The last 8 years has shown us the US government condones profit making in ethically grey areas.  And so now our culture will shift to the "I gotta get paid" mentality as long as I break no laws.  This is what happens when people see Mozillo & Corzine walking free.

Personally I would also snipe business from redfin.

If a potential client comes to me from Redfin or another agent I'm not going to turn them away.  My service and my other skills will be the crucial determinants whether I'm able to earn my keep with them.

Just to be clear, I don't think what usc is doing is wrong or not moral. for me, it's the actions of his clients that are "off". They figured out a way to maximize the rebate. And that's what I was referencing when I said they found a "loophole" of sorts.

Not really a loophole when it's fairly known that I've always provided rebates to clients (I'm sure I'm not the only agent that does that).....probably more of a possible opportunity to minimize the total cost of the home.  Again, I have more flexibility with providing rebates because I don't have a commission split with my broker. 

Sure it's fairly known that you provide rebates (I personally learned this from reading TI). What I didn't know is I can use you, and maximize my rebate from you by "trying" another agent out to look at houses without ever intending to establish any sort of relationship with them. This is why I love TI. Learn something new everyday.

 

[usctrojancpa]

If there is no law against it, then game on.

This reminds me of the debate of why companies move their manufacturing to China.  It's because all the competitors are doing it and consumers want cheap products.  If USC's not doing it, someone else will.  Might as well make that money.

The last 8 years has shown us the US government condones profit making in ethically grey areas.  And so now our culture will shift to the "I gotta get paid" mentality as long as I break no laws.  This is what happens when people see Mozillo & Corzine walking free.

Personally I would also snipe business from redfin.

If a potential client comes to me from Redfin or another agent I'm not going to turn them away.  My service and my other skills will be the crucial determinants whether I'm able to earn my keep with them.

Just to be clear, I don't think what usc is doing is wrong or not moral. for me, it's the actions of his clients that are "off". They figured out a way to maximize the rebate. And that's what I was referencing when I said they found a "loophole" of sorts.

Not really a loophole when it's fairly known that I've always provided rebates to clients (I'm sure I'm not the only agent that does that).....probably more of a possible opportunity to minimize the total cost of the home.  Again, I have more flexibility with providing rebates because I don't have a commission split with my broker. 

Sure it's fairly known that you provide rebates (I personally learned this from reading TI). What I didn't know is I can use you, and maximize my rebate from you by "trying" another agent out to look at houses without ever intending to establish any sort of relationship with them. This is why I love TI. Learn something new everyday.

As they say, each new day brings something new to learn.  haha  That being said, we are talking about 2 clients out of over 100 that I have worked with in the past 5+ years so it's not a common occurrence by any means.  And those were highly sophisticated buyers who knew exactly what they wanted down to the floor plan and street...that's the exception not the norm when it comes to buyers.

 

[notTHEoc]

a

 

[eyephone]

IMO, it's not the agent's business or duty to worry about who a client has worked with in the past. I have been recommended agents who, for whatever reason, were not good fits for me. It shouldn't matter to my next agent though.

However, I'm with IHO and most, it's wrong to game the system using Redfin just for showings, even if it's legal. It's not just hurting Redfin, it's hurting any other potential real Redfin client who is now indirectly bearing the cost of that overhead. Redfin rebates have down a lot since they started.

That's why I'd like to see the real estate industry have more of a fee-for-service type model. For whatever agent I end up doing my transaction with, I don't want to be paying for all the time he had to waste on clients who didn't end up transacting. I'd be willing to pay a la carte separately for showings.

There's too many agents out there and low barrier to enter. (In my opinion)

There will always be agents willing to lower the commission rate (for seller) or give back commission (to buyer).

 

[usctrojancpa]

IMO, it's not the agent's business or duty to worry about who a client has worked with in the past. I have been recommended agents who, for whatever reason, were not good fits for me. It shouldn't matter to my next agent though.

However, I'm with IHO and most, it's wrong to game the system using Redfin just for showings, even if it's legal. It's not just hurting Redfin, it's hurting any other potential real Redfin client who is now indirectly bearing the cost of that overhead. Redfin rebates have down a lot since they started.

That's why I'd like to see the real estate industry have more of a fee-for-service type model. For whatever agent I end up doing my transaction with, I don't want to be paying for all the time he had to waste on clients who didn't end up transacting. I'd be willing to pay a la carte separately for showings.

There's too many agents out there and low barrier to enter. (In my opinion)

There will always be agents willing to lower the commission rate (for seller) or give back commission (to buyer).

I'd love to see BRE/DRE make real estate licensing a lot more difficult kind of like getting your CPA license.  I believe that a degree (4-year degree requirement would be nice) should be required along with certain analytical schools along with an experience sign off (like with the CPA) of having worked under an experience agent or broker for some time (1-2 years).  Also, make the exams more difficult please....I think I studied for it for a few days and passed it with no problem.  That would definitely weed a lot of agents that have no business being agents.  There's plenty of business to go around to the good agents.

 

[usctrojancpa]

IMO, it's not the agent's business or duty to worry about who a client has worked with in the past. I have been recommended agents who, for whatever reason, were not good fits for me. It shouldn't matter to my next agent though.

However, I'm with IHO and most, it's wrong to game the system using Redfin just for showings, even if it's legal. It's not just hurting Redfin, it's hurting any other potential real Redfin client who is now indirectly bearing the cost of that overhead. Redfin rebates have down a lot since they started.

That's why I'd like to see the real estate industry have more of a fee-for-service type model. For whatever agent I end up doing my transaction with, I don't want to be paying for all the time he had to waste on clients who didn't end up transacting. I'd be willing to pay a la carte separately for showings.

Yeah, it would be nice if the realtor association changed it's current outdated commission structure but I try to work with it by aligning my client's interests along with mine the best that I can using various structures.  I remember Redfin used to rebate 60% of the commission back in the day, not it's down to less than 40%. 

 

[notTHEoc]

a

 

[Maserson]

Add me to the list of people happy with using USC as an agent.  Same with SGIP for lending.