I have a 2/2 townhome near downtown Houston. I need to out my home up for sale and homes are moving well in my area.

Why should I not use redfin and pay a lower fee?

If you want to do it then get rolling!

50% of the time that kind of thing works wonderfully. If you are in the good side then awesome...if not, don't waste time pulling the plug.

Good luck!

We used Redfin. Would def recommend.

It is the future way. Reduce cost especially on the listing side is changing the 6% status quo. Redfin is a excellent company. My son used them to sell his house in San Antonio and was pleased.

Sold a home through Redfin. Great experience.

2/2 townhome which I'm sure is adjacent to similar townhomes it won't be difficult to figure out listing price so just need someone to take care of the details. Using a 6% realtor is robbery in that situation

Red Pear Realty said:

---

Why not use an Aggie owned company and save even more? $1,200 for a full service listing. Call/text/email me if you are interested.

save@myredpear.com

713-303-9025

---

How do you make a living selling homes for $1200? This must take some high volume sales. Serious question. I promise I'm not trolling.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Im a Realtor. Why would we hate this thread? I lose deals to Redfin

---

You answered your own question. The thread advertises your competitor.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Im a Realtor. Why would we hate this thread? I lose deals to Redfin and other discount brokerages on occasion. I don't cut rates because people don't want to pay for my services. Not a big deal. This is no business for butt hurt.

---

For now you lose on occasion. In five years, you will lose more than 'on occasion.' Change is coming.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Im a Realtor. Why would we hate this thread? I lose deals to Redfin

---

You answered your own question. The thread advertises your competitor.

---

It's business, man. The last one I lost to Redfin sat on the market for 37 days. If I lose THAT much business to place like Redfin, then thats on me. Some people want cheap and I don't work for reduced commission. There is a Realtor and client for everyone.

[Be polite and respectful on this board or get banned. There is your warning, don't whine to us if you ignore it. -Staff]

If you think you can sell on Redfin, then check out Creekview Realty. That's who I used and had a great experience. $1200 to list and 2% back to me at closing.

5

Quote:

---

How do you make a living selling homes for $1200? This must take some high volume sales. Serious question. I promise I'm not trolling.

---

They do buyer rep too. They still get 3% for that.

I think many may be misreading minimum fee brokerages. There certainly is change ongoing in the real estate business but I think we will see an increase in lawsuits due to increased Broker liability. Minimum involvement by Brokers will potentially lead to violations and mistakes. I am not a realtor and only my opinion. There are realtors/brokers on here that will have a better perspective.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Discount brokerages are great if the market you're selling in is good. Of course it's a good market that creates the glut of part time soccer mom realtors we see today in a lot of places, BCS included. In that world most anyone can sell a house and I'd argue that using a discount realtor is a waste of money with FSBO would work just as well and save a percent or two. It's when the market is bad that you realize the value of a good realtor. A good realtor will earn their commission.

---

Except FSBO doesn't get you on the MLS (at least without paying a service, which when I sold FSBO a few years ago, wasn't exactly cheap).

And my experience with FSBO brought out some "sketchy" buyers (i.e., people who wanted to do owner-financing), and not a single potential buyer who looked at my house was brought to it by a realtor. I listed the house on Zillow (which at the time was free and included 3-4 pictures; you could pay for a "premium" service) and buyers found it that way. The buyer's agents essentially black-balled my house (but they all knew it was for sale because every day I got postcards and letters in the mail from realtors asking to list my house). I think most buyer's agents don't want to bother with FSBOs because they don't think they will get their 3% (even if the seller says they will in the listing).

I think, at least for now, having a realtor/firm attached to a listed property brings a certain amount of "credibility" that will result in more potential buyers seeing the house. But, as someone previously pointed out, this is all a function of location - some places are much better suited to this type of arrangement than others. In the area I live now, I wouldn't do flat-fee.

With that said, I'd like to see both sides go "flat-fee" and sellers pay their agent and buyers pay theirs. Based on my experience as a buyer and seller of multiple properties, there are some buyer's agents that deserve 3% and others that do not - it should be up to the buyer to negotiate that with their rep. I hate the system we have now where buyer's agents just assume they will get (or deserve) 3% from the seller - unfortunately, I've seen that expectation really undermine a negotiation/sale, and that's not fair to buyers.

TXTransplant said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Discount brokerages are great if the market you're selling in is good. Of course it's a good market that creates the glut of part time soccer mom realtors we see today in a lot of places, BCS included. In that world most anyone can sell a house and I'd argue that using a discount realtor is a waste of money with FSBO would work just as well and save a percent or two. It's when the market is bad that you realize the value of a good realtor. A good realtor will earn their commission.

---

Except FSBO doesn't get you on the MLS (at least without paying a service, which when I sold FSBO a few years ago, wasn't exactly cheap).

And my experience with FSBO brought out some "sketchy" buyers (i.e., people who wanted to do owner-financing), and not a single potential buyer who looked at my house was brought to it by a realtor. I listed the house on Zillow (which at the time was free and included 3-4 pictures; you could pay for a "premium" service) and buyers found it that way. The buyer's agents essentially black-balled my house (but they all knew it was for sale because every day I got postcards and letters in the mail from realtors asking to list my house). I think most buyer's agents don't want to bother with FSBOs because they don't think they will get their 3% (even if the seller says they will in the listing).

I think, at least for now, having a realtor/firm attached to a listed property brings a certain amount of "credibility" that will result in more potential buyers seeing the house. But, as someone previously pointed out, this is all a function of location - some places are much better suited to this type of arrangement than others. In the area I live now, I wouldn't do flat-fee.

With that said, I'd like to see both sides go "flat-fee" and sellers pay their agent and buyers pay theirs. Based on my experience as a buyer and seller of multiple properties, there are some buyer's agents that deserve 3% and others that do not - it should be up to the buyer to negotiate that with their rep. I hate the system we have now where buyer's agents just assume they will get (or deserve) 3% from the seller - unfortunately, I've seen that expectation really undermine a negotiation/sale, and that's not fair to buyers.

---

You are more than welcome to pay your own rep. You are also more than welcome to list a house and only pay your seller rep. Literally nothing is stopping you.

mazag08 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Discount brokerages are great if the market you're selling in is good. Of course it's a good market that creates the glut of part time soccer mom realtors we see today in a lot of places, BCS included. In that world most anyone can sell a house and I'd argue that using a discount realtor is a waste of money with FSBO would work just as well and save a percent or two. It's when the market is bad that you realize the value of a good realtor. A good realtor will earn their commission.

---

Except FSBO doesn't get you on the MLS (at least without paying a service, which when I sold FSBO a few years ago, wasn't exactly cheap).

And my experience with FSBO brought out some "sketchy" buyers (i.e., people who wanted to do owner-financing), and not a single potential buyer who looked at my house was brought to it by a realtor. I listed the house on Zillow (which at the time was free and included 3-4 pictures; you could pay for a "premium" service) and buyers found it that way. The buyer's agents essentially black-balled my house (but they all knew it was for sale because every day I got postcards and letters in the mail from realtors asking to list my house). I think most buyer's agents don't want to bother with FSBOs because they don't think they will get their 3% (even if the seller says they will in the listing).

I think, at least for now, having a realtor/firm attached to a listed property brings a certain amount of "credibility" that will result in more potential buyers seeing the house. But, as someone previously pointed out, this is all a function of location - some places are much better suited to this type of arrangement than others. In the area I live now, I wouldn't do flat-fee.

With that said, I'd like to see both sides go "flat-fee" and sellers pay their agent and buyers pay theirs. Based on my experience as a buyer and seller of multiple properties, there are some buyer's agents that deserve 3% and others that do not - it should be up to the buyer to negotiate that with their rep. I hate the system we have now where buyer's agents just assume they will get (or deserve) 3% from the seller - unfortunately, I've seen that expectation really undermine a negotiation/sale, and that's not fair to buyers.

---

You are more than welcome to pay your own rep. You are also more than welcome to list a house and only pay your seller rep. Literally nothing is stopping you.

---

In all your years of being a realtor, how many times have you either a) represented buyers who said they wanted to pay you themselves or b) represented a seller who got an offer from buyers who said they were going to pay their own agent?

Sure, buyers and sellers are more than welcome to do this, but in the current system there is exactly zero incentive for a buyer to agree to pay their own agent.

Which is why, if a seller who doesn't do a "conventional" listing does not explicitly state they will pay the buyers' agent's commission, it may be much more difficult to sell their house. Even if you explicitly state in the listing you will pay 3% to the buyers' agent, it can still be a tough road (especially in a market like BCS). I've seen more than one deal fall
apart (or almost fall apart) because the buyers' agent is unwilling to negotiate their 3% with their buyers (either by reducing their commission or talking to the buyers about "contributing" to their 3%).

The only way this works is if buyers also have some skin in the game with their realtor - either but signing a financial contract or by paying a "retainer" upfront (I.e., $1000 gets you x hours of service or x showings, and it's credited to the buyer at closing). I don't see buyers' agents implementing anything like that anytime soon.

If the market rejects your idea, yet there are no actual laws or rules stopping it, then maybe it's capitalism you should be blaming instead of Realtors.

The only way the industry changes to what you want is through government intervention.

mazag08 said:

---

If the market rejects your idea, yet there are no actual laws or rules stopping it, then maybe it's capitalism you should be blaming instead of Realtors.

The only way the industry changes to what you want is through government intervention.

---

That's quite a leap - and it's not at all what I want. It seems to me like realtors don't want to change. Unless, of course, they are forced to because of regulation. And the "market" can't reject anything if it's never offered in the first place. I've never seen any established real estate company offer the equivalent of a flat-fee service for a buyers' agent.

Look, change is hard, but the only way to make it happen is to get the majority of those affected by the change to participate. In this case, that includes realtors AND their clients. As much as I know there is no buyers' agent who wants to ask their buyers to pay a retainer, there are also very few clients who want to pay their realtor upfront - at least as long as "no one else is doing it".

I would actually make a case that a retainer or flat-fee paid by a buyer would actually make buyers' agents lives easier - no more getting dragged around for hours and hours by clients who ultimately get cold feet and don't buy anything. Under the current system, buyers know they can do this with no accountability.

TXTransplant said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

If the market rejects your idea, yet there are no actual laws or rules stopping it, then maybe it's capitalism you should be blaming instead of Realtors.

The only way the industry changes to what you want is through government intervention.

---

That's quite a leap - and it's not at all what I want. It seems to me like realtors don't want to change. Unless, of course, they are forced to because of regulation. And the "market" can't reject anything if it's never offered in the first place. I've never seen any established real estate company offer the equivalent of a flat-fee service for a buyers' agent.

Look, change is hard, but the only way to make it happen is to get the majority of those affected by the change to participate. In this case, that includes realtors AND their clients. As much as I know there is no buyers' agent who wants to ask their buyers to pay a retainer, there are also very few clients who want to pay their realtor upfront - at least as long as "no one else is doing it".

I would actually make a case that a retainer or flat-fee paid by a buyer would actually make buyers' agents lives easier - no more getting dragged around for hours and hours by clients who ultimately get cold feet and don't buy anything. Under the current system, buyers know they can do this with no accountability.

---

There's a guy on this thread doing as close that as you are going to get. You must have skimmed over his post.

Fair point...he wasn't promoting the buyers' agent arrangement, since the OP asked about selling/flat-fee listings. But, I see the 2% rebate to buyers in his signature and checked out his website.

I am happy to see what he's offering as an option, but that's not the model that I'm suggesting. The sellers are the ones who (most likely) signed a contract with an agent to pay 6%. So, while the sellers aren't paying the buyers' agent the full 3%, they are still paying for the buyers' agent to do the 2% rebate. The buyers still don't have any skin in the game (and in this model are actually getting cash back from the seller). The buyers and the buyers' agent are still banking on the fact that the seller signed a conventional 6% contract with their agent.

I would like to see a system where the sellers sign a contract with their sellers agent (for arguments sake, let's say its for 3%) that goes to their agent only. There is never any expectation that the sellers or the sellers' agent will pay the buyers' agent anything out of their commission for the sale. The buyers either sign a contract with their agent to pay them at closing (part of their closing costs), pay an upfront retainer, or pay for services as they go.

And I'm fully aware that any seller can "negotiate" whatever commission they want. However, even flat-fee agents will recommend that the seller offer 3% to the buyers' agent (in fact paying that 3% is standard language in the flat-fee contracts that I've seen). Because even flat-fee agents recognize that no buyers' agent is going to bring a buyer if they don't get paid. Sellers should not be paying buyers' agent commission.

Now, you can make the argument that the buyers' agent commission is built into the price of the house and buyers are essentially "paying" for it (in the form of a higher priced house), but that's not really/always the case (appraisals don't account for it). And the commission payment is on the sellers' side of the closing costs.

It seems that with the power of the Internet these days, many people see their potential house on line before they ever call an agent to show them the house. The last couple of houses we have bought, and most of my friends home purchases that I can think of, were found on line 1st and then an agent was contacted so that they/we could go see the house.

Assuming the buyer has not signed any type of agreement yet with the realtor, if the seller explicitly states they will only pay a $5000 commission (example) doesn't the buyers agent Have no leverage at that point? The buyer can just go find an agent that would be willing to take that amount of commission to facilitate the transaction correct? I guess I'm just wondering why with all of these websites now, sellers don't explicitly state in their listings that they will only pay $xxxx commission.

I just don't get why it's assumed the sellers still pay 3% when so many houses these days were bought by people that saw the house online first and then contacted an agent.

Ed Carter said:

---

It seems that with the power of the Internet these days, many people see their potential house on line before they ever call an agent to show them the house. The last couple of houses we have bought, and most of my friends home purchases that I can think of, were found on line 1st and then an agent was contacted so that they/we could go see the house.

Assuming the buyer has not signed any type of agreement yet with the realtor, if the seller explicitly states they will only pay a $5000 commission (example) doesn't the buyers agent Have no leverage at that point? The buyer can just go find an agent that would be willing to take that amount of commission to facilitate the transaction correct? I guess I'm just wondering why with all of these websites now, sellers don't explicitly state in their listings that they will only pay $xxxx commission.

I just don't get why it's assumed the sellers still pay 3% when so many houses these days were bought by people that saw the house online first and then contacted an agent.

---

Realtor here. Too late at night for a long discussion but we do more than open doors for homes you find. The legal side of this business alone has gotten crazy. I often feel like I am a lawyer instead of a realtor.

mgreen said:

---

Ed Carter said:

---

It seems that with the power of the Internet these days, many people see their potential house on line before they ever call an agent to show them the house. The last couple of houses we have bought, and most of my friends home purchases that I can think of, were found on line 1st and then an agent was contacted so that they/we could go see the house.

Assuming the buyer has not signed any type of agreement yet with the realtor, if the seller explicitly states they will only pay a $5000 commission (example) doesn't the buyers agent Have no leverage at that point? The buyer can just go find an agent that would be willing to take that amount of commission to facilitate the transaction correct? I guess I'm just wondering why with all of these websites now, sellers don't explicitly state in their listings that they will only pay $xxxx commission.

I just don't get why it's assumed the sellers still pay 3% when so many houses these days were bought by people that saw the house online first and then contacted an agent.

---

Realtor here. Too late at night for a long discussion but we do more than open doors for homes you find. The legal side of this business alone has gotten crazy. I often feel like I am a lawyer instead of a realtor.

---

A good buyers' agent is worth his/her weight in gold, especially if you are relocating to a new area. Which in my mind, is exactly why buyers should be paying for their agents' time and effort. If you want/need a "full-service" agent, pony up the $ for it. Alternatively, if a buyer really only needs someone to open doors, then there is no reason for the seller/seller's agent to be obligated to give the buyers' agent 3%.

I agree they provide value. I think we are discussing the relativity of that value. I've been a part of buying or selling eight homes and I have not had a single instance where the wording/negotiation got so crazy that it required a ton of expertise from the buyers agent. And once again, even if it did require more effort and more back-and-forth, are we saying $5000 is not worth that agents time?

I completely agree if you're relocating out-of-state that its a different beast altogether But in examples like DFW where the market is full of people moving across town for better commute, better school district, moving up in the home quality etc., these people already perusing the redfin's, Zillow's of the world where they're able to see dozens of pictures and get any ounce of information they possibly want about that house before ever steping into it

I understand your point, but in example provided above would you, as a realtor, tell your buyer that you would not be willing to help them buy that house if it stated You were only going to make $5000?