Real estate agents are the scum of the earth
Charles Riggs
The subject title says it all.
--
Charles Riggs
Actually, there isn't an accented
letter in my email address
mUs1Ka
> The subject title says it all.
Imitation ones are worse.
--
Ray
Ross Howard
wrought:
>
>The subject title says it all.
What -- that you need a hyphen between the first and second words?
--
Ross Howard
Mickwick
>The subject title says it all.
Real estate[-]agents or real[-]estate agents? (If the latter, is this
yet another attack on Dena Jo, Chuck?) I don't know anything about
real[-]estate agents but, in England (Scotland is different),
estate[-]agents act for one party, are expected to pretend that they act
for the other party as well, and it is from this apparent (and sometimes
real) conflict of interest that they are allowed to make their living.
It is not their fault, as individuals, that this is how things are. Nor
is it really their fault, as individuals, that, no matter what the
outcome of a house sale, they will always appear to be amoral dimwits
who have been handed a licence to print money.
Their trade association, however, might very well be lacking in
intelligence and morality. I am not prepared to be more definite than
that, not least because I don't know anything whatsoever about it.
Which proves that, although I am perhaps a dimwit, I for one am not
amoral.
--
Mickwick
Harvey Van Sickle
> In alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs wrote:
>> The subject title says it all.
Re: English estate agents
> Nor is it really their fault, as individuals, that, no matter what
> the outcome of a house sale, they will always appear to be amoral
> dimwits who have been handed a licence to print money.
There's a big pondial difference, though: when was the last time
someone in NAmer got away with 1% to 3% of the selling price for their
agent's service? I seem to recall that when I sold a house in Canada
in 1982 the going rate was something around 7% -- has that changed?
There'd be riots if estate agents banded together and agreed to charge
that in the UK.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Skitt
> Mickwick wrote
>> Charles Riggs wrote:
>>> The subject title says it all.
>
> Re: English estate agents
>
>> Nor is it really their fault, as individuals, that, no matter what
>> the outcome of a house sale, they will always appear to be amoral
>> dimwits who have been handed a licence to print money.
>
> There's a big pondial difference, though: when was the last time
> someone in NAmer got away with 1% to 3% of the selling price for their
> agent's service? I seem to recall that when I sold a house in Canada
> in 1982 the going rate was something around 7% -- has that changed?
>
> There'd be riots if estate agents banded together and agreed to charge
> that in the UK.
It looks like 6% is the going rate around here, but my local RE dude hinted
that he might take less under certain circumstances when I put the question
to him. After all, $36,000 is a bit steep for just handling a sale where
houses are selling like hotcakes for more than the asking price. I mean,
really! It would take only three sales per year to make a living wage and
then some.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
R H Draney
>
>Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>>
>> There's a big pondial difference, though: when was the last time
>> someone in NAmer got away with 1% to 3% of the selling price for their
>> agent's service? I seem to recall that when I sold a house in Canada
>> in 1982 the going rate was something around 7% -- has that changed?
>>
>> There'd be riots if estate agents banded together and agreed to charge
>> that in the UK.
>
>It looks like 6% is the going rate around here, but my local RE dude hinted
>that he might take less under certain circumstances when I put the question
>to him. After all, $36,000 is a bit steep for just handling a sale where
>houses are selling like hotcakes for more than the asking price. I mean,
>really! It would take only three sales per year to make a living wage and
>then some.
Six percent is for when the seller and buyer and represented by the same
agent...if different agents are involved, it goes to seven, the better to split
the commission, my dear....
Resolved, that [real] estate agents are somewhat higher on the ethical continuum
than used car dealers, and at approximately the same level as ballroom-dance
instructors....r
Skitt
> Skitt filted:
>> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>>> There's a big pondial difference, though: when was the last time
>>> someone in NAmer got away with 1% to 3% of the selling price for
>>> their agent's service? I seem to recall that when I sold a house
>>> in Canada in 1982 the going rate was something around 7% -- has
>>> that changed?
>>>
>>> There'd be riots if estate agents banded together and agreed to
>>> charge that in the UK.
>>
>> It looks like 6% is the going rate around here, but my local RE dude
>> hinted that he might take less under certain circumstances when I
>> put the question to him. After all, $36,000 is a bit steep for just
>> handling a sale where houses are selling like hotcakes for more than
>> the asking price. I mean, really! It would take only three sales
>> per year to make a living wage and then some.
>
> Six percent is for when the seller and buyer and represented by the
> same agent...if different agents are involved, it goes to seven, the
> better to split the commission, my dear....
Apparently not in these parts. In fact, my dude said that if I already had
a buyer, he might do the necessary details for 3% ($18,000), or so -- still
a nifty figure for what a lawyer might charge no more than $1000 to do.
> Resolved, that [real] estate agents are somewhat higher on the
> ethical continuum than used car dealers, and at approximately the
> same level as ballroom-dance instructors....r
Well, mine does bring me a tomato plant each year, a little plastic flag for
the front lawn around each July 4th, and just recently he brought us a nice
binder containing all sorts of information and copies of documents of
previous transactions for our house. Very nice. He certainly wants me to
remember him when it comes time to sell our place. I, however, am fairly
certain that I can do the deed much more cheaply, if and when the time
comes.
Tony Cooper
>It looks like 6% is the going rate around here, but my local RE dude hinted
>that he might take less under certain circumstances when I put the question
>to him. After all, $36,000 is a bit steep for just handling a sale where
>houses are selling like hotcakes for more than the asking price. I mean,
>really! It would take only three sales per year to make a living wage and
>then some.
Isn't the commission split four ways? Half to the listing company,
and half to the buyer's agent's company? And the agents receive half
of the half?
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>
>> Resolved, that [real] estate agents are somewhat higher on the
>> ethical continuum than used car dealers, and at approximately the
>> same level as ballroom-dance instructors....r
>
>Well, mine does bring me a tomato plant each year, a little plastic flag for
>the front lawn around each July 4th, and just recently he brought us a nice
>binder containing all sorts of information and copies of documents of
>previous transactions for our house. Very nice. He certainly wants me to
>remember him when it comes time to sell our place. I, however, am fairly
>certain that I can do the deed much more cheaply, if and when the time
>comes.
Mine (that is to say, the one real estate agent with whom I've had direct
professional dealings) actually *was* my ballroom-dance instructor some three
years earlier...it struck me at the time how similar in temperament the ideal
member of each profession should be; a delicate balance of flattery and
avarice....
(She looked exactly like "scream queen" Brinke Stevens, if you should for some
reason wish to try picturing her)....r
Default User
>
> The subject title says it all.
Mine wasn't. She was very professional and helpful.
Brian
Jess Askin
"Charles Riggs" <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote in message
news:5uejl0dkq5ks8mun6...@4ax.com...
>
> The subject title says it all.
I thought they were called something else over there.
Maria Conlon
>
> Isn't the commission split four ways? Half to the listing company,
> and half to the buyer's agent's company? And the agents receive half
> of the half?
I believe that is correct.
By the way, the current "going rate" in the Detroit area seems to be 7% (and
has been for quite some time). The same percentage applies in the Gatlinburg
area of east Tennessee (again, this is not new).
As for as I know, a real estate agent can accept a lower percentage -- that
is, accepting a lower rate is not illegal.
Having several relatives and friends in the real estate business (and this
has been true for as long as I can remember), I disagree with the Subject
Line of this thread.
Maria Conlon
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
You are right, I'm pretty sure (do the companies actually take that much?).
Still, that's a lot to pay for handling the sale of a house.
R H Draney
>
>Having several relatives and friends in the real estate business (and this
>has been true for as long as I can remember), I disagree with the Subject
>Line of this thread.
I'm sure you're right, but you can't disagree without proposing an alternative
candidate...this is Usenet, after all....r
Maria Conlon
Keeping the originator of the thread in mind, I would think it really has
nothing to do with real estate per se. So, perhaps the Subject Line could
be: "I'm in a bad mood" or simply "Grrr."
But if we wish to address the matter of "scum of the earth," I won't suggest
anything because what I *would* suggest would be seen as very nastily
political of me. (And rightly so, probably.)
Maria Conlon
Dena Jo
> Isn't the commission split four ways? Half to the listing
> company, and half to the buyer's agent's company? And the agents
> receive half of the half?
My split is 60/40, 60 to me, 40 to the broker, but the more I sell,
the bigger my share. My share can go as high as 83%.
--
Dena Jo
Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain.
Plonk the bastards:
http://www.schmuckwithanunderwood.com/trolls.html
don groves
wrote...
> On 28 Sep 2004, Tony Cooper posted thus:
>
> > Isn't the commission split four ways? Half to the listing
> > company, and half to the buyer's agent's company? And the agents
> > receive half of the half?
>
> My split is 60/40, 60 to me, 40 to the broker, but the more I sell,
> the bigger my share. My share can go as high as 83%.
We're certain the OP wasn't about you, Dena Jo.
BTW, I know someone in Prescott, she was Dorothy Salvinger but
got married and I don't know her current last name. Maybe it's a
small enough town that you might run into her some day.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
Dena Jo
> BTW, I know someone in Prescott, she was Dorothy Salvinger but
> got married and I don't know her current last name. Maybe it's a
> small enough town that you might run into her some day.
One doesn't meet a Dorothy every day, so I'll remain alert for one!
Tony Cooper
wrote:
Commission structures, like any other form of compensation, are
negotiable. In Florida, what I described is the normal program for
most real estate agents that are not, themselves, brokers.
That "for the sale of a house" is really too broad a statement. From
what you've described, your area is a seller's market and perhaps the
agent only has to handle the sale itself. In a buyer's market, that
sale may take months and months. What would your time be worth to
show a house sixty or more times? Don't think that those sixty
lookie-loos went to the house because they found the house on their
own. Many times the potential buyers called about another house, but
the agent put yours on the list to see.
If it's as easy to sell in your area as you indicate, they why would
you even talk to a Realtor? If houses are selling for more than the
asking price, it sounds like houses are being listed and sold by
owners that don't understand what the asking price should be.
My general opinion of people that resent paying commissions is that
these are people that don't understand the difference between gross
and net. If you can walk away with more dollars after paying a hefty
commission than you can if you sell the house yourself, then don't
worry about who else gets what.
R J Valentine
} On 28 Sep 2004, don groves posted thus:
}
}> BTW, I know someone in Prescott, she was Dorothy Salvinger but
}> got married and I don't know her current last name. Maybe it's a
}> small enough town that you might run into her some day.
}
} One doesn't meet a Dorothy every day, so I'll remain alert for one!
I met Dorothy Day once.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Charles Riggs
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>> The subject title says it all.
>
>Imitation ones are worse.
Yes, but they all do imitations of what a house actually offers. Some
are masters at it.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Not in my lingo. It's an American word so I should know, but isn't it
also 'estate agent', not 'estate-agent' across the water?
Checking...yes, it is.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>In alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>>The subject title says it all.
>
>Real estate[-]agents or real[-]estate agents? (If the latter, is this
>yet another attack on Dena Jo, Chuck?)
I'm not fond of real estate agents, estate agents being no better. Is
there anyone on earth, besides other real estate agents, who is?
>I don't know anything about
>real[-]estate agents but, in England (Scotland is different),
>estate[-]agents act for one party, are expected to pretend that they act
>for the other party as well, and it is from this apparent (and sometimes
>real) conflict of interest that they are allowed to make their living.
>It is not their fault, as individuals, that this is how things are. Nor
>is it really their fault, as individuals, that, no matter what the
>outcome of a house sale, they will always appear to be amoral dimwits
>who have been handed a licence to print money.
>
>Their trade association, however, might very well be lacking in
>intelligence and morality. I am not prepared to be more definite than
>that, not least because I don't know anything whatsoever about it.
I assume a real estate agent or two has pointed out to you the many
virtues or a particular house they're trying to unload. Haven't we all
had some experience with the breed?
>Which proves that, although I am perhaps a dimwit, I for one am not
>amoral.
Who was saying you are either?
Charles Riggs
<harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On 28 Sep 2004, Mickwick wrote
>> In alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>>> The subject title says it all.
>
>Re: English estate agents
I'm slowly making the transition back to AmE. It will prove more
useful to me in the near future.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Skitt filted:
>>
>>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>>> Resolved, that [real] estate agents are somewhat higher on the
>>> ethical continuum than used car dealers, and at approximately the
>>> same level as ballroom-dance instructors....r
Higher than used car salesmen, yes, but lower than lawyers and
bankers.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Maria Conlon filted:
>>
>>Having several relatives and friends in the real estate business (and this
>>has been true for as long as I can remember), I disagree with the Subject
>>Line of this thread.
How boring life would be if everyone agreed on everything with
everyone else. How boorish though that someone would make the effort
to simply disagree, adding nothing else to the discussion. There's a
good balance to be found there, surely.
>I'm sure you're right, but you can't disagree without proposing an alternative
>candidate...this is Usenet, after all....r
The list has been growing, I notice. Who in what profession or job are
*not* the scum of the earth? Hoping to have a more positive outlook,
that's my next question. I'd nominate rocket scientists, mailmen [BrE:
postmen], and bee keepers, for starters.
Charles Riggs
True enough, Jess, but I explained my motives for using the American
version to Harvey, this morning.
Maria C.
> R H Draney wrote:
>> Maria Conlon filted:
>>>
>>> Having several relatives and friends in the real estate business
>>> (and this has been true for as long as I can remember), I disagree
>>> with the Subject Line of this thread.
>
> How boring life would be if everyone agreed on everything with
> everyone else. How boorish though that someone would make the effort
> to simply disagree, adding nothing else to the discussion. There's a
> good balance to be found there, surely.
Actually, I didn't send the post (quoted partially above) simply to
disagree. The main points were about percentages. The comment you quote was
a "by the way" type of thing. And I mentioned in a later post (replying to
Ron) why I would not add to the "scum of the earth" list.
But would you like to start a "boorish" list? Failing to read a post fully
before calling it "boorish" would qualify, don't you think?
Ron Draney had said:
>> I'm sure you're right, but you can't disagree without proposing an
>> alternative candidate...this is Usenet, after all....r
Charles (replying to Ron):
> The list has been growing, I notice. Who in what profession or job are
> *not* the scum of the earth? Hoping to have a more positive outlook,
> that's my next question. I'd nominate rocket scientists, mailmen [BrE:
> postmen], and bee keepers, for starters.
I will gladly add to a "not the scum of the earth" list. In no particular
order: Boilermakers (my father), waitresses (my mother, after being a "Rosie
the Riveter" type), engineers of most kinds (several I know), some (not all)
health care workers, anyone in any job who is honest, ethical, and
hard-working. You probably won't find that last group in any job that would
be classified with the "scum" -- not for long, in any event.
--
Simon R. Hughes
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:31:34 +0200, Ross Howard <ggu...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:33:20 +0100, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net>
>>wrought:
>>
>>>
>>>The subject title says it all.
>>
>>What -- that you need a hyphen between the first and second words?
>
> Not in my lingo. It's an American word so I should know, but isn't it
> also 'estate agent', not 'estate-agent' across the water?
> Checking...yes, it is.
Bzzzzzzzzzt!
"Real-estate" is a compound adjective and thus needs a hyphen. Or
are you differentiating real esate agents from imaginary ones?
--
Simon R. Hughes
See http://home.online.no/~shughes/stuff/email.html for my email
address.
Dena Jo
> "Real-estate" is a compound adjective and thus needs a hyphen.
I was taught real estate is a compound noun and thus needs *no* hyphen
when used as a direct adjective.
Charles Riggs
>On 29 Sep 2004, Simon R. Hughes posted thus:
>
>> "Real-estate" is a compound adjective and thus needs a hyphen.
>
>I was taught real estate is a compound noun and thus needs *no* hyphen
>when used as a direct adjective.
Direct whatever or when not, it is never hyphenated by reasonable
people.
CyberCypher
> On 29 Sep 2004 14:45:03 GMT, Dena Jo <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On 29 Sep 2004, Simon R. Hughes posted thus:
>>
>>> "Real-estate" is a compound adjective and thus needs a hyphen.
>>
>>I was taught real estate is a compound noun and thus needs *no*
>>hyphen when used as a direct adjective.
>
> Direct whatever or when not, it is never hyphenated by reasonable
> people.
So few of us are reasonable people. Let's settle on "realestate"
instead.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
Ross Howard
>On 29 Sep 2004, Simon R. Hughes posted thus:
>
>> "Real-estate" is a compound adjective and thus needs a hyphen.
>
>I was taught real estate is a compound noun and thus needs *no* hyphen
>when used as a direct adjective.
Like, say "walking stick"? If so, does that mean that whoever taught
you to hyphenate would claim that "walking stick stand" was the
correct form while "walking-stick stand" was wrong?
(AAMOI, who did teach you to hyphenate, Dena? All the American style
guides I'm aware of tend to be hyphen-happy rather than hyphen-shy
when it comes to premodifying compounds.)
--
Ross Howard
Dena Jo
> AAMOI, who did teach you to hyphenate, Dena?
AAMOI?
I imagine I first learned hyphenation in school, then university,
then again when studying court reporting, which I never completed.
(I had to face the fact that I would never get up to speed, no matter
how long I struggled with it.)
Walking stick's a tough one for me. Real estate's an easy one. The
same teacher who taught me *not* to hyphenate "real estate
practices" because "real estate" is a compound noun is the same
teacher who taught me *to* hyphenate something like "above-referenced
documents." FWIW, her teachings have been validated time and time
again by what I've read in AUE/AEU. That's been kind of comforting
to me.
If I get a chance later, I'll check my grammar manuals to see what
they say about it. Now I'm curious.
Skitt
> Commission structures, like any other form of compensation, are
> negotiable. In Florida, what I described is the normal program for
> most real estate agents that are not, themselves, brokers.
>
> That "for the sale of a house" is really too broad a statement. From
> what you've described, your area is a seller's market and perhaps the
> agent only has to handle the sale itself. In a buyer's market, that
> sale may take months and months. What would your time be worth to
> show a house sixty or more times? Don't think that those sixty
> lookie-loos went to the house because they found the house on their
> own. Many times the potential buyers called about another house, but
> the agent put yours on the list to see.
>
> If it's as easy to sell in your area as you indicate, they why would
> you even talk to a Realtor? If houses are selling for more than the
> asking price, it sounds like houses are being listed and sold by
> owners that don't understand what the asking price should be.
No, that's not it. It's that many people are desperate to get a house,
especially one that is still priced around $500,000. When they locate one
that suits them, they bid more than what is asked to make sure they get it.
Others bidders do the same, though and so it goes.
A house around the corner from us was listed at $459,000 and sold a month
ago for $470,000. A house directly across the street from us was sold in
one day for more than the asking price, but I don't know how much it went
for. The asking price was $429,950 (it was a lesser house than ours), and
that was several months ago. The prices keep going up every month.
> My general opinion of people that resent paying commissions is that
> these are people that don't understand the difference between gross
> and net. If you can walk away with more dollars after paying a hefty
> commission than you can if you sell the house yourself, then don't
> worry about who else gets what.
Well, sure, but how would that happen? After all, I would have about a
$30,000 margin to play with (on a $500,000 house). Part of it could be used
to reduce the price, the other part to cover any expenses, most of which
would have had to be paid on top of the commission anyway. Real estate
agents usually tell people to figure on 10 percent selling costs (including
commission). That's a lot.
It was different when we sold our Florida house, when all we got was what we
had paid for it six-and-a-half years before, the selling costs, and about
half of our moving costs back to California. Of course, it was only a
$117,100 deal. Living in that house cost us the money we could have made by
investing it somewhere else instead of buying the house outright, that's
all.
As it turned out, the woman across the street from us bought our house for
her son and bid a hundred dollars more than the asking price to be sure to
get it. Had we known that she wanted it, we wouldn't have used an agent,
and all of us would have profited, she more than we, possibly. She was
pissed that we had listed it without talking to her and proposed a scheme to
circumvent the agent, but I didn't go along with that.
Simon R. Hughes
> On 29 Sep 2004, Ross Howard posted thus:
>
>> AAMOI, who did teach you to hyphenate, Dena?
>
> AAMOI?
>
> I imagine I first learned hyphenation in school, then university,
> then again when studying court reporting, which I never completed.
> (I had to face the fact that I would never get up to speed, no matter
> how long I struggled with it.)
>
> Walking stick's a tough one for me. Real estate's an easy one. The
> same teacher who taught me *not* to hyphenate "real estate
> practices" because "real estate" is a compound noun is the same
> teacher who taught me *to* hyphenate something like "above-referenced
> documents." FWIW, her teachings have been validated time and time
> again by what I've read in AUE/AEU. That's been kind of comforting
> to me.
>
> If I get a chance later, I'll check my grammar manuals to see what
> they say about it. Now I'm curious.
Context determines word class. In "This real estate is for sale",
"real estate" is a compound noun. In "the real-estate
convention", "real-estate" is an adjective, and thus needs a
hyphen.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
...
> I assume a real estate agent or two has pointed out to you the many
> virtues or a particular house they're trying to unload. Haven't we
all
> had some experience with the breed?
Nope. I've never been interested in owning real estate.
--
Jerry Friedman
Mickwick
>I'm not fond of real estate agents, estate agents being no better. Is
>there anyone on earth, besides other real estate agents, who is?
I am, it seems.
I am as prejudiced against estate agents as the next man but this summer
I found myself at a barbecue with seven or eight other people. I knew
and liked them all and things were going swimmingly: good food, good
company, fine weather. Then, as the day darkened and all grew still, I
happened to look around the table at my companions. The face of each was
yellowed by the new-lit candle. The slight sweat that comes from eating
too much meat sparkled on their brows and jaws. Each wore a small smile
of quiet pleasure. It was then that I realised (and Brits alone will be
able to imagine the chill that this brought to my soul) that every last
one of them - men, women, the lone child too, no doubt: the child who
had sung that peculiar song about Jesus - that every last one of them
was a chartered surveyor!*
That's it, I thought. I'll never be cool now. I have officially entered
middle age. I am happy to be in the company of estate agents.
*The chartered surveyor is a sort of uber-estate agent - reputedly even
duller, dimmer and more grasping than your everyday high-street variety
of estate agent, the latter being apparently a member of the most
despised profession in Britain.
--
Mickwick
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> Thus spake Dena Jo:
>
> > On 29 Sep 2004, Ross Howard posted thus:
> >
> >> AAMOI, who did teach you to hyphenate, Dena?
> >
> > AAMOI?
"As a matter of interest" (one of those phatic expressions that
contributes no meaning, NTTAWWT at all).
> > I imagine I first learned hyphenation in school, then university,
> > then again when studying court reporting, which I never completed.
> > (I had to face the fact that I would never get up to speed, no
matter
> > how long I struggled with it.)
> >
> > Walking stick's a tough one for me. Real estate's an easy one.
The
> > same teacher who taught me *not* to hyphenate "real estate
> > practices" because "real estate" is a compound noun is the same
> > teacher who taught me *to* hyphenate something like
"above-referenced
> > documents." FWIW, her teachings have been validated time and time
> > again by what I've read in AUE/AEU. That's been kind of comforting
> > to me.
> >
> > If I get a chance later, I'll check my grammar manuals to see what
> > they say about it. Now I'm curious.
>
> Context determines word class. In "This real estate is for sale",
> "real estate" is a compound noun. In "the real-estate
> convention", "real-estate" is an adjective, and thus needs a
> hyphen.
I'm with you, but I think the theory here is that "real estate" is
already virtually one word (in American English), so you don't need to
make it "more one word" by hyphenating it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ross Howard
>On 29 Sep 2004, Ross Howard posted thus:
>
>> AAMOI, who did teach you to hyphenate, Dena?
>
>AAMOI?
As a matter of interest (sorry, I thought it was a standard areffism).
--
Ross Howard
Areff
What? What kind of Amairican are you?
--
Mark Browne
writes
>which would have had to be paid on top of the commission anyway. Real
>estate agents usually tell people to figure on 10 percent selling costs
>(including commission). That's a lot.
It does make the 1.5 to 2.5% that estate agents in the UK charge seem
almost reasonable.
--
Mark Browne
If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the
"From" address will be rejected
Gary G. Taylor
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:20:16 +0100, "mUs1Ka" <mUs...@exite.com> wrote:
>
>>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>> The subject title says it all.
>>
>>Imitation ones are worse.
>
> Yes, but they all do imitations of what a house actually offers. Some
> are masters at it.
And you just broke the number one rule of RealEstateAgentSpeak:
it's a HOME, **NOT** a "house"!
--
Gary G. Taylor * Rialto, CA
gary at donavan dot org / http:// geetee dot donavan dot org
www.howtofixcomputers.com.is.bogus.horseshit
"The two most abundant things in the universe
are hydrogen and stupidity." --Harlan Ellison
Nell
How about Realtor tm? It's one of the few professions I know of that
are upper-cased and trademarked.
Here in South Jersey houses are also selling like pancakes (sorry,
hotcakes). Several of the people selling are moving down to Florida
(still). My daughter rents and has had to move four times (one of the
times was out of a house her sister-in-law "owned" and didn't make
payments on and a lien was put against it) because a house was sold
that she was living in and the new owners didn't want tenants. The
house she is presently living in was just bought but the owner buys
houses for the express purpose of renting them out. My 8 year old
grandson is in his 4th school. My daughter and my grandson are hoping
this is it for awhile. She's lived all over Ocean County but prefers to
move on *her* terms.
Nell
Mike Lyle
> On 28 Sep 2004, Tony Cooper posted thus:
>
>> Isn't the commission split four ways? Half to the listing
>> company, and half to the buyer's agent's company? And the agents
>> receive half of the half?
>
> My split is 60/40, 60 to me, 40 to the broker, but the more I sell,
> the bigger my share. My share can go as high as 83%.
This is totally different from England and Wales (Scotland has a
different system, as somebody mentioned earlier). Here the agent does
all the selling work, apart from the lawyer stuff: there's no broker.
You agree a slightly lower commission for a sole agent than if you
place the property with more than one agent; multiple agents will
sometimes share the commission in some way, but that doesn't affect
the seller. Domestic buyers will very rarely have an agent. The buyer
pays the surveyor.
Mike.
Charles Riggs
<knot...@knotdonavan.org> wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:20:16 +0100, "mUs1Ka" <mUs...@exite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>>> The subject title says it all.
>>>
>>>Imitation ones are worse.
>>
>> Yes, but they all do imitations of what a house actually offers. Some
>> are masters at it.
>
>And you just broke the number one rule of RealEstateAgentSpeak:
>
>it's a HOME, **NOT** a "house"!
How right you are.
Tony Cooper
>On 28 Sep 2004, Mickwick wrote
>> In alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>>> The subject title says it all.
>
>Re: English estate agents
>
>> Nor is it really their fault, as individuals, that, no matter what
>> the outcome of a house sale, they will always appear to be amoral
>> dimwits who have been handed a licence to print money.
>
>There's a big pondial difference, though: when was the last time
>someone in NAmer got away with 1% to 3% of the selling price for their
>agent's service? I seem to recall that when I sold a house in Canada
>in 1982 the going rate was something around 7% -- has that changed?
>
>There'd be riots if estate agents banded together and agreed to charge
>that in the UK.
Since when is the rate that a profession charges for its services an
indication of the morality of the profession? The rates charged are a
result of supply and demand and local convention rather than any moral
aspects.
A professional basketball player in the US might earn over three
million dollars annually for his services, but the same player under
contract in the Italian league might earn US$40,000 annually. The
player is no more or less moral based on his paycheck.
A 2,000 square foot home in one part of the US might be built for
$60,000, but the same floor plan and quality of materials to build
that home in another part of the US might cost $500,000. Again, the
builder's morals are not the deciding factor.
The talking head on the anchor desk of the local television affiliate
station earns a fraction of what the person earns for doing the same
job for a major market or network station. Morality is not involved
in salary negotiation.
I don't care where you go, or what profession is involved, the rate of
earnings are decided by competitive market factors and not by
morality. (Organized crime employees might be an exception.)
In each of the above examples, the morality of the individuals
involved may range from stealing coins from the UNICEF collection jars
to sainthood, but the profession of the individual is not the
determinant.
Arcadian Rises
>
>A professional basketball player in the US might earn over three
>million dollars annually for his services, but the same player under
>contract in the Italian league might earn US$40,000 annually. The
>player is no more or less moral based on his paycheck.
That reminds me the example given by J.P. O'Roorke in "Peace Kills": if the
entire gross world product were divided by the number of the world population,
everyone would get about $7,000 a year. That would deprive a professional
basketball player of some $21,003,000 a year, but would allow a family of four
in Tanzania to save money to buy a used Toyota.
Harvey Van Sickle
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:49:27 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
><harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 28 Sep 2004, Mickwick wrote
>>> In alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>>>> The subject title says it all.
>>
>> Re: English estate agents
>>
>>> Nor is it really their fault, as individuals, that, no matter
>>> what the outcome of a house sale, they will always appear to be
>>> amoral dimwits who have been handed a licence to print money.
>>
>> There's a big pondial difference, though: when was the last time
>> someone in NAmer got away with 1% to 3% of the selling price for
>> their agent's service? I seem to recall that when I sold a house
>> in Canada in 1982 the going rate was something around 7% -- has
>> that changed?
>>
>> There'd be riots if estate agents banded together and agreed to
>> charge that in the UK.
>
> Since when is the rate that a profession charges for its services
> an indication of the morality of the profession? The rates
> charged are a result of supply and demand and local convention
> rather than any moral aspects.
-snip examples-
> In each of the above examples, the morality of the individuals
> involved may range from stealing coins from the UNICEF collection
> jars to sainthood, but the profession of the individual is not the
> determinant.
I was talking about the "percentage of sale charged as a fee" for the
same service in two different countries; you seem to be discussing
"the absolute amount someone is paid for their work". I would submit
that those are fundamentally different things, as the first is much
more fairly compared than the second.
Any opinion poll I've ever seen of "respect for professions", though --
in any country -- invariably places real estate agents low in terms of
respect and earning their money. (Whether or not that's even remotely
fair is beside the point: that's the impression.)
I find it intriguing that whether an agent charges 2% of sale price or
6% of sale price, this common impression of "amoral dimwits who have
been handed a licence to print money" remains a common one. I also
feel that it is an even less fair judgement on the lower-percentage
agents, since charging 6% fees in a field which, elsewhere, earns 2%
fees smacks of price-fixing rather than market competition.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Tony Cooper
<harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
I don't see how percentage of the sale or absolute amount makes any
difference at all. The percentage is set to determine the absolute
amount, and that is done on the basis of market conditions and local
conventions.
There is nothing inherently "fair" about any form of compensation.
All forms of compensation are determined by what it takes to obtain
the services of the person in the profession involved.
>Any opinion poll I've ever seen of "respect for professions", though --
>in any country -- invariably places real estate agents low in terms of
>respect and earning their money. (Whether or not that's even remotely
>fair is beside the point: that's the impression.)
The general public usually rates professions that have a low visible
skill factor as a profession that is not respected. The average home
buyer sees the real estate agent as little more than a chauffer...the
person that drives them around to see various houses. They have no
idea what goes into choosing the homes that are on the tour.
In Florida, real estate agents are rated very low in respectability
because it is a profession that is the domain of the bored housewife
with a husband that earns enough to support the family. The housewife
wants something to do to occupy her time, give her an excuse to dress
up a few days a week, allow her to see other people's houses, claim
some expenses for tax purposes, and claim to have "a job".
To be fair, and not to sound too chauvinistic, there are a lot of
retired military males that have real estate licenses for the primary
reason of having an excuse to get out of the house.
In this state, real estate agents are not paid by the brokers. They
work for commission only, so a real estate broker can keep as many
agents "employed" as they have space to fit them in. They can add 10
agents to their staff and not add one dollar of expense. The real
estate agent pays for their own training (required to obtain a
license) and their own expenses. Consequently, any office has a group
of dilettantes that luck into a listing or a sale once in a while, and
a small core group of professionals. The professional ones are the
ones that depend on commission earnings for their livelihood. Find a
real estate office, and you'll probably find that 90% of the earnings
are made by 10% of the agents.
>I find it intriguing that whether an agent charges 2% of sale price or
>6% of sale price, this common impression of "amoral dimwits who have
>been handed a licence to print money" remains a common one. I also
>feel that it is an even less fair judgement on the lower-percentage
>agents, since charging 6% fees in a field which, elsewhere, earns 2%
>fees smacks of price-fixing rather than market competition.
The function of a real estate agent is never necessary. It is always
an option on the part of the buyer or seller to use one. You always
have the opportunity to buy or sell a home without the use of an
agent. Perhaps, in buying a specific home, you may have to go through
an agent, but it is your choice to decide on that specific house.
Price-fixing can only successfully exist where the product or service
is required. Real estate agents are used as a convenience by buyers
and sellers, and the rates they charge are therefore determined by
market conditions.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> In this state, real estate agents are not paid by the brokers.
They
> work for commission only, so a real estate broker can keep as many
> agents "employed" as they have space to fit them in. They can add
10
> agents to their staff and not add one dollar of expense. The real
> estate agent pays for their own training (required to obtain a
> license) and their own expenses. Consequently, any office has a
group
> of dilettantes that luck into a listing or a sale once in a while,
and
> a small core group of professionals. The professional ones are
the
> ones that depend on commission earnings for their livelihood. Find
a
> real estate office, and you'll probably find that 90% of the
earnings
> are made by 10% of the agents.
I'm getting the hang of this now. The Brit-type system doesn't work
like that. The "estate agent" is, if I now understand, what in the US
is called the "broker". Each office will have a quite small number of
"negotiators", employed, I assume, on a "salary-plus" contract; there
won't be any hangers-on or snappers-up-of-trifles. I think most of
these will have some sort of professional qualification, or be
working towards it.
The Australian system is pretty much the same; but there seems to be
more emphasis on "salespersons", at least in big firms, but even
these must be registered after a certain amount of training. Scotland
differs sharply in legal technicalities.
Mike.
Areff
> I don't care where you go, or what profession is involved, the rate of
> earnings are decided by competitive market factors and not by
> morality. (Organized crime employees might be an exception.)
Whoa, Coop. What about all the professions that enjoy monopolistic or
quasi-monopolistic advantages? The legal profession comes to mind. Maybe
the Realtor[TM] profession falls into this category too. When these
advantages are the result, in whole or in part, of significant action by
the state (certainly true in the case of the legal profession), you're
getting beyond mere competitive market factors.
--
Default User
>
> A 2,000 square foot home in one part of the US might be built for
> $60,000, but the same floor plan and quality of materials to build
> that home in another part of the US might cost $500,000. Again, the
> builder's morals are not the deciding factor.
Is this really true? Construction costs that much different? If that
were really the case, it would seem cheaper build a house in the
inexpensive part of the country and move it.
I would think the major difference between your $60,000 house and the
$500,000 one would be location, location, location. Not cost of
construction.
Brian
Areff
> Price-fixing can only successfully exist where the product or service
> is required. Real estate agents are used as a convenience by buyers
> and sellers, and the rates they charge are therefore determined by
> market conditions.
Say what? What does "required" mean, Coop? All you need for price-fixing
is (a) some demand for some sort of good or service, and (b) some means of
enforcing an agreement among the providers to fix prices at a particular
level.
You could conceivably have all the "competing" real estate agents in
Greater Orlando secretly agreeing to set rates at x%. Of course we have
laws against that sort of thing, but that's because they happen. Even
Arjay's friend Bob Bork doesn't like that.
--
Tony Cooper
The typical real estate office here in Florida has one broker and
several agents (although an agent may also be a broker). The law
requires that a broker be involved, and the license is in the name of
the broker.
The agents are paid only by commission on transactions completed.
They are independent agents and not subject to being paid minimum
wage. The broker will attempt to get as many agents to work for him
or her as possible since there is no financial output required to add
agents. The more agents, the more people out there soliciting
listings, making calls, and sending out letters to prospects. Many of
the agents are part-time or work hours at their convenience.
If the office large enough, there might be a paid secretary or office
manager, but that person would not be an agent.
All agents are required to be licensed by the state. They have to
take 63 hours of instruction and pass a test. Most candidates take a
course at a real estate training school. The candidate pays for the
course. Once licensed, the agent pays their own expenses for
mailings, promotional materials, dues, etc. They pay their own
vehicle expenses driving potential clients around. They do not
receive benefits like insurance or retirement plans. They even buy
their own business cards.
There are full-time, dedicated agents that make a good buck. Most of
them, though, couldn't survive on their real estate sales earnings.
They have retirement income or a spouse that works.
Now.....note that I said a "typical" office. Like any field,
everything is subject to negotiation. An experienced, proven agent
may be able to negotiate a deal with an agency that's different than I
have described. But, if your Cousin Tilly lives in Florida and is
bored with working at Wal-Mart and considering the exciting world of
real estate sales, the above is what she should expect to encounter.
My information, by the way, is from the mare's mouth. Several of my
wife's friends are in the business. None of them are covering the
expenses of travel and wardrobe, let alone making money. All have
husbands bringing home the bacon.
Tony Cooper
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>> Price-fixing can only successfully exist where the product or service
>> is required. Real estate agents are used as a convenience by buyers
>> and sellers, and the rates they charge are therefore determined by
>> market conditions.
>
>Say what? What does "required" mean, Coop? All you need for price-fixing
>is (a) some demand for some sort of good or service, and (b) some means of
>enforcing an agreement among the providers to fix prices at a particular
>level.
You read the whole sentence, right? You saw "successfully"? Without
a strong and steady demand for the product, any price fixing efforts
will fail. I think you can probably make the mental jump from "strong
and steady demand" to "required".
>You could conceivably have all the "competing" real estate agents in
>Greater Orlando secretly agreeing to set rates at x%. Of course we have
>laws against that sort of thing, but that's because they happen. Even
>Arjay's friend Bob Bork doesn't like that.
You remember that word "successfully" from the paragraph above? That
secret agreement works until the market gets soft.
Areff
> My information, by the way, is from the mare's mouth. Several of my
> wife's friends are in the business. None of them are covering the
> expenses of travel and wardrobe, let alone making money. All have
> husbands bringing home the bacon.
So why do they bother to waste their time thus if they're actually losing
money? I can understand boredom, but there are cheaper solutions.
--
Tony Cooper
My comments didn't even include the price of land. Just bricks and
mortar. The major variances between parts of the country include the
cost of labor, impact fees, permit fees, and the cost of materials.
Skitt's alluding to his house being in the half-million dollar range
at market value. Let's just guess that $100,000 of that is the cost
of the lot and $400,000 would be the price of construction. So, I'm
saying that a builder can build a comparable house to Skitt's in
Buttfuck, North Carolina for 25% of that figure.
The point isn't that the builder in California is more or less moral
than the builder in Buttfuck, but that the conditions that builders
work under are different.
Tony Cooper
Are you telling me that the fees a New Yawk City lawyer charges to
draw up a trust fund are going to be the same as the fees of an
Orlando lawyer?
Them New Yawk City lawyers have to pay thousands more a month for
office space, thousands more a month for office employees, and
thousands more a month for personal living expenses. Consequently,
the market conditions for lawyers in New Yawk City are considerably
different than the market conditions for Orlando lawyers. Market
conditions are based on what it costs a person to work in that market.
Areff
> On 7 Oct 2004 18:21:18 GMT, Areff <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>Whoa, Coop. What about all the professions that enjoy monopolistic or
>>quasi-monopolistic advantages? The legal profession comes to mind. Maybe
>>the Realtor[TM] profession falls into this category too. When these
>>advantages are the result, in whole or in part, of significant action by
>>the state (certainly true in the case of the legal profession), you're
>>getting beyond mere competitive market factors.
>
> Are you telling me that the fees a New Yawk City lawyer charges to
> draw up a trust fund are going to be the same as the fees of an
> Orlando lawyer?
They could be, but I'll grant you that on average the New York City
lawyer will charge higher fees. (An elite Orlando law firm might charge
more than a shyster [NTTAWWS] on Queens Boulevard, say.) But the pernt is
that, for example, in most states (actually Florida might be one of the
exceptions) you *have* to be a licensed attorney to draw up a trust
document thingie for a client, so this artificially (so to say) limits the
competitiveness of the market, in particular keeping out potential
low-priced competitors.
I'm not saying that all professional licensing stuff is bogus (consider
the medical profession[s] that you, as a purveyor of medical equipment,
have experience with) but clearly some of it is (even wrt the medical
profession -- consider the restrictions on what nurses are allowed to do,
in many places).
> Them New Yawk City lawyers have to pay thousands more a month for
> office space, thousands more a month for office employees, and
> thousands more a month for personal living expenses.
Generally true. However, I'm currently living in the 24th Largest City in
America and I can tell you that supermarkets here are just as expensive as
those in Chicago, which were surprisingly equivalent to Manhattan's
supposedly price-gouging supermarkettes pricewise. I happen to believe
that the supposed greater expensiveness (= BrE 'dearness') of New York
City is, to a large degree, a myth.
--
Dylan Nicholson
news:4ugbm0da00ifaai5j...@4ax.com...
>
> Skitt's alluding to his house being in the half-million dollar range
> at market value. Let's just guess that $100,000 of that is the cost
> of the lot and $400,000 would be the price of construction.
Is that really a typical breakdown in the US? I would have though in
most of suburban Australia the cost of the house itself is never more
than half, and quite often less than a third of the total property value.
In fact there are even properties that are worth more without the
house, due obviously to the cost of pulling down the house.
Skitt
> "Default User" wrote:
>> I would think the major difference between your $60,000 house and the
>> $500,000 one would be location, location, location. Not cost of
>> construction.
>
> My comments didn't even include the price of land. Just bricks and
> mortar. The major variances between parts of the country include the
> cost of labor, impact fees, permit fees, and the cost of materials.
>
> Skitt's alluding to his house being in the half-million dollar range
> at market value. Let's just guess that $100,000 of that is the cost
> of the lot and $400,000 would be the price of construction. So, I'm
> saying that a builder can build a comparable house to Skitt's in
> Buttfuck, North Carolina for 25% of that figure.
>
> The point isn't that the builder in California is more or less moral
> than the builder in Buttfuck, but that the conditions that builders
> work under are different.
Actually, my house is cheaper than the lot. The house is worth about
$175,000, and the lot $275,000, for a total of $450,000. It's being in the
SF Bay Area that drives up the prices. A larger house (with a concrete slab
floor, though) that I had in Florida sold for $117,100 in March of 2000,
swimming pool and all. I'd guess that today that house is worth $125,000 if
the hurricanes left it intact.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Dylan Nicholson
>
> Actually, my house is cheaper than the lot. The house is worth about
> $175,000, and the lot $275,000, for a total of $450,000.
That's more like what I would expect. I believe our lot is worth over
300K, but the house is only insured for less a third of that.
rzed
news:2sm0uoF...@uni-berlin.de:
[...]
> Generally true. However, I'm currently living in the 24th
> Largest City in America ...
Now now, Areff. Shouldn't that be the *25th* largest?
--
rzed
NCTFLCIA?
Areff
Egad, you're right. I must have been using an outdated list, because I
know I was counting Brooklyn (...).
What's the deal with Fort Worth? It's jumping up the ranking by leaps and
bounds.
--
Tony Cooper
Well, you'd have to ask them, wouldnja? Just so Jerry won't start
demanding evidential support, I'll preface this by saying that I'm
conjecturing wildly, but I think it's because it gives them an excuse
to dress up and go somewhere a few days a week, it provides some
social interaction, it allows them to poke around in other people's
houses to see how they are decorated, and it allows them to claim that
they "work" without having a 9 to 5 commitment. And, there's always
the chance that they'll list and sell a house in Alaqua and make some
big bucks.
Tony Cooper
Damn, Dylan, don't take all statements as "typical". I paid $25,000
for my lot and spent a little over $125,000 on building the house.
Over 25 years ago. Around the corner from me, a lot about a third
smaller than mine - and an interior lot where mine is a corner lot -
sold for $78,000 a few years back. Looking at the house, I'd say he
spent about $250,000 to build his house on that lot. Today, in my
neighborhood, they're buying older houses and tearing them down to
build completely new houses. That means they're spending over
$150,000 for the lot, plus the cost of demolishing the old house.
There are no more vacant golf course lots in the area.
There's no "typical" though. It depends on the state, the location
within the state, and the location within the city. My daughter and
her husband spent over $250,000 on a small 1970s house on a small lot
a couple of years ago. It happens to be in Jacksonville Beach where
there is virtually no undeveloped property and houses go at a premium.
They could have purchased a larger, newer house with a bigger lot for
half the money if they had been willing to cross over the causeway to
the mainland.
Tony Cooper
Dylan, if you could get responses from 50 people, that live in areas
scattered across the US, you'd get responses 'way over and 'way under
this ratio. There is no typical.
There are places in the US where you can get a 3,000 square foot house
and enough property to raise horses for $450,000. There are places
that you would have to pay that much for under 2,000 square feet on a
zero lot line piece of property. (Zero lot line means a lot so narrow
that you might have 10 feet between you and your next door neighbor.)
There is no typical.
Tony Cooper
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On 7 Oct 2004 18:21:18 GMT, Areff <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Whoa, Coop. What about all the professions that enjoy monopolistic or
>>>quasi-monopolistic advantages? The legal profession comes to mind. Maybe
>>>the Realtor[TM] profession falls into this category too. When these
>>>advantages are the result, in whole or in part, of significant action by
>>>the state (certainly true in the case of the legal profession), you're
>>>getting beyond mere competitive market factors.
>>
>> Are you telling me that the fees a New Yawk City lawyer charges to
>> draw up a trust fund are going to be the same as the fees of an
>> Orlando lawyer?
>
>They could be, but I'll grant you that on average the New York City
>lawyer will charge higher fees. (An elite Orlando law firm might charge
>more than a shyster [NTTAWWS] on Queens Boulevard, say.) But the pernt is
>that, for example, in most states (actually Florida might be one of the
>exceptions) you *have* to be a licensed attorney to draw up a trust
>document thingie for a client, so this artificially (so to say) limits the
>competitiveness of the market, in particular keeping out potential
>low-priced competitors.
My references are to genuine lawyers that pass the bar and everything.
>I'm not saying that all professional licensing stuff is bogus (consider
>the medical profession[s] that you, as a purveyor of medical equipment,
>have experience with) but clearly some of it is (even wrt the medical
>profession -- consider the restrictions on what nurses are allowed to do,
>in many places).
>
>> Them New Yawk City lawyers have to pay thousands more a month for
>> office space, thousands more a month for office employees, and
>> thousands more a month for personal living expenses.
>
>Generally true. However, I'm currently living in the 24th Largest City in
>America and I can tell you that supermarkets here are just as expensive as
>those in Chicago, which were surprisingly equivalent to Manhattan's
>supposedly price-gouging supermarkettes pricewise. I happen to believe
>that the supposed greater expensiveness (= BrE 'dearness') of New York
>City is, to a large degree, a myth.
We're not talking about the price of tomatoes. New Yawk City lawyers
pay more for their monthly commuting tickets to Westchester than
Orlando lawyers spend for office rent. That's got to be reflected in
the price of drawing up a trust document.
Skitt
> "Dylan Nicholson" wrote:
>> "Skitt" wrote:
>>> Actually, my house is cheaper than the lot. The house is worth
>>> about $175,000, and the lot $275,000, for a total of $450,000.
>>
>> That's more like what I would expect. I believe our lot is worth
>> over 300K, but the house is only insured for less a third of that.
>
> Dylan, if you could get responses from 50 people, that live in areas
> scattered across the US, you'd get responses 'way over and 'way under
> this ratio. There is no typical.
>
> There are places in the US where you can get a 3,000 square foot house
> and enough property to raise horses for $450,000. There are places
> that you would have to pay that much for under 2,000 square feet on a
> zero lot line piece of property. (Zero lot line means a lot so narrow
> that you might have 10 feet between you and your next door neighbor.)
Hey, you just described our property. The house has 1158 sqare feet, and
one neighbor's house is about 10 feet away. The other neighbor's house is
about 15 feet away.
> There is no typical.
You said it.
Frances Kemmish
I have a friend who used to be a real estate broker. I asked her once
why there seemed to be so many real estate agents around. She thought
that some of them got the licence to help them find property for
investment. Many of them didn't even try to sell properties.
Fran
Dylan Nicholson
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:15:09 +1000, "Dylan Nicholson"
> <wizo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:4ugbm0da00ifaai5j...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Skitt's alluding to his house being in the half-million dollar range
> >> at market value. Let's just guess that $100,000 of that is the cost
> >> of the lot and $400,000 would be the price of construction.
> >
> >Is that really a typical breakdown in the US? I would have though in
> >most of suburban Australia the cost of the house itself is never more
> >than half, and quite often less than a third of the total property value.
> >In fact there are even properties that are worth more without the
> >house, due obviously to the cost of pulling down the house.
> >
>
> Damn, Dylan, don't take all statements as "typical".
Well I didn't mean to imply to that I thought you were intending your
statement to be taken as a "typical" assessment, but you were talking
about the SF area, which I do know is often taken to be a fairly
pricey area landwise, so that was why I wondered whether your
breakdown was reasonable. As Skitt's response confirmed, it was indeed
a bit off the mark, so I don't think my surprise was unjustified.
I'm sure even in Australia there *are* areas where the house might
be worth 3/4 of the property price, but certainly not in well-populated
urban areas.
Dylan Nicholson
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> > There is no typical.
>
> You said it.
I guess an "unqualified" typical was uncalled for. What I meant was "in a
well-populated urban area". I don't know much about Hayward, but I do
know it's not an unreasonable distance from SF, renowned as one of the
more expensive areas in the US as far as real-estate goes.
Tony Cooper
<wizo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:93vbm0pb4ncbub9je...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:15:09 +1000, "Dylan Nicholson"
>> <wizo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:4ugbm0da00ifaai5j...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> Skitt's alluding to his house being in the half-million dollar range
>> >> at market value. Let's just guess that $100,000 of that is the cost
>> >> of the lot and $400,000 would be the price of construction.
>> >
>> >Is that really a typical breakdown in the US? I would have though in
>> >most of suburban Australia the cost of the house itself is never more
>> >than half, and quite often less than a third of the total property value.
>> >In fact there are even properties that are worth more without the
>> >house, due obviously to the cost of pulling down the house.
>> >
>>
>> Damn, Dylan, don't take all statements as "typical".
>
>Well I didn't mean to imply to that I thought you were intending your
>statement to be taken as a "typical" assessment, but you were talking
>about the SF area, which I do know is often taken to be a fairly
>pricey area landwise, so that was why I wondered whether your
>breakdown was reasonable. As Skitt's response confirmed, it was indeed
>a bit off the mark, so I don't think my surprise was unjustified.
My response was a bit off the mark for Skitt's particular location.
That doesn't mean that it was at all off the mark for other Bay Area
neighborhoods. Skitt's location is no more "typical" of the Bay Area
than my neighborhood is "typical" of the Orlando area.
>I'm sure even in Australia there *are* areas where the house might
>be worth 3/4 of the property price, but certainly not in well-populated
>urban areas.
I don't know this for sure, but I'd imagine that the ratio might be
dead-on in some parts of Oakland. Skitt can probably name some areas
where the ratio would be very close.
Tony Cooper
I'm not picking on your choice of "typical". I'd just like to make it
clear that the situation is so diverse across this country that
generalizations just are not reasonable.
Skitt
> "Dylan Nicholson" wrote:
>> "Tony Cooper" wrote:
>>> "Dylan Nicholson" wrote:
I can't think of any. The cheapest house in today's paper (3 BR, 1 BA) in
Oakland is listed at $340,000. I doubt that the structure itself is worth
more than $100,000. You'd have to get out into the Central Valley, at least
an hour-and-a-half away, for the ratio to be closer to even.
For a lot to be cheaper than the house, you'd have to travel several hours,
I think. Five years ago it was not quite so bad, but the price of land here
goes up by leaps and bounds, forcing many people to live a couple of hours
or more away from their jobs in the Bay Area. I was lucky that our present
house has been in the family since 1994, when it was acquired for
$160,000 -- a steal even then.
The house was built in 1955 and sold for $13,500 then.
I must add that the property tax people see the situation totally
differently, as their current figure for our property's taxable worth is
$211,171. I don't have this years' tax bill yet, but the breakdown on last
year's assessment was 30% for the land and 70% for the improvements. That
has very little to do with the market worth of the property, of course.
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote
>>> There is no typical.
>>
>> You said it.
>
> I guess an "unqualified" typical was uncalled for. What I meant was
> "in a well-populated urban area". I don't know much about Hayward,
> but I do
> know it's not an unreasonable distance from SF, renowned as one of the
> more expensive areas in the US as far as real-estate goes.
You are right -- see my other post I sent a few minutes ago.
Default User
> I have a friend who used to be a real estate broker. I asked her once
> why there seemed to be so many real estate agents around. She thought
> that some of them got the licence to help them find property for
> investment. Many of them didn't even try to sell properties.
I had a friend who got his license just for buying and selling his own
homes.
Brian
Skitt
That's what I had in mind when I took almost all of the courses required for
a broker's license. That, and using up my veterans' education dollars. I
never followed through on it, but I learned a lot.
Mike Lyle
In Britain, you don't need a licence for that: you can sell your
house privately, just as you might sell your car. Even the lawyer bit
is dead easy (I've done it), as you just need to buy a conveyancing
pack from any of a number of willing sellers.
Mike.
don groves
mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk poured forth...
Same here, no one needs a license to sell any kind of personal
property including real estate. I think what DU meant is that his
friend was buying and selling on his own for investment
porpoises.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
Areff
> Same here, no one needs a license to sell any kind of personal
> property
Oy! (several counterexamples come to mind), and
> including real estate.
Oy! (Real estate isn't personal property!)
--
the Omrud
And in France you need a licence to be an estate agent, which is very
difficult to get and effectively requires a relevant degree. I am
theoretically not permitted to advertise or take money for the rental
of my own holiday homes, but I suspect the French government has
better things to do than prosecute hundreds of thousands of EU
citizens for renting out their own homes.
--
David
=====
replace the first component of address
with the definite article.
Default User
> In article <2sofkoF...@uni-berlin.de>, Mike Lyle at
> mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk poured forth...
> > >> I had a friend who got his license just for buying and selling
> > his >> own homes.
> > >
> > > That's what I had in mind when I took almost all of the courses
> > > required for a broker's license. That, and using up my veterans'
> > > education dollars. I never followed through on it, but I learned
> > > a lot.
> >
> > In Britain, you don't need a licence for that: you can sell your
> > house privately, just as you might sell your car. Even the lawyer
> > bit is dead easy (I've done it), as you just need to buy a
> > conveyancing pack from any of a number of willing sellers.
That's true, but good luck getting the other agent to split the
commission.
> Same here, no one needs a license to sell any kind of personal
> property including real estate. I think what DU meant is that his
> friend was buying and selling on his own for investment
> porpoises.
No, I meant the house he was going to sell and the one he was going to
buy.
Brian
Tony Cooper
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Skitt wrote:
>> Default User wrote:
>>> Frances Kemmish wrote:
>>
>>>> I have a friend who used to be a real estate broker. I asked her
>>>> once why there seemed to be so many real estate agents around.
>She
>>>> thought that some of them got the licence to help them find
>>>> property for investment. Many of them didn't even try to sell
>>>> properties.
>>>
>>> I had a friend who got his license just for buying and selling his
>>> own homes.
>>
>> That's what I had in mind when I took almost all of the courses
>> required for a broker's license. That, and using up my veterans'
>> education dollars. I never followed through on it, but I learned a
>> lot.
>
>In Britain, you don't need a licence for that:
You don't need one here, either. Brian's friend probably became
licensed just to get his house in the Multiple Listing Service or to
learn more about the process. Now, they have services that will put a
home in the MLS group for a fee if you sell your own home.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
I thought Oakland had some lower-income and middle-income sections.
There has to be somewhere that the policemen, garbage men, janitors,
and laborers live. I can't see a school janitor qualifying for a
$340,000 house or driving 90 minutes to work.
>For a lot to be cheaper than the house, you'd have to travel several hours,
>I think. Five years ago it was not quite so bad, but the price of land here
>goes up by leaps and bounds, forcing many people to live a couple of hours
>or more away from their jobs in the Bay Area. I was lucky that our present
>house has been in the family since 1994, when it was acquired for
>$160,000 -- a steal even then.
>
>The house was built in 1955 and sold for $13,500 then.
>
>I must add that the property tax people see the situation totally
>differently, as their current figure for our property's taxable worth is
>$211,171. I don't have this years' tax bill yet, but the breakdown on last
>year's assessment was 30% for the land and 70% for the improvements. That
>has very little to do with the market worth of the property, of course.
That's usually the case. It has been everywhere I've lived.
Skitt
> I thought Oakland had some lower-income and middle-income sections.
> There has to be somewhere that the policemen, garbage men, janitors,
> and laborers live. I can't see a school janitor qualifying for a
> $340,000 house or driving 90 minutes to work.
Many low income people can't afford to buy houses around here and in Oakland
too. The lucky ones are those who bought theirs five or more years ago.
Others rent (a room, if necessary) or commute long distances. I don't know
what they do, but a *group* of Mexicans just bought the house across from
ours. I think there are at least three working males in the group. They
leave every morning at 5:20 in a van with a ladder on top. They paid $430K
plus for the house, which sold in one day.
BTW, I've heard that garage men make pretty good money.
As far as that goes, I'm not rich, and my retirement income is quite low.
There's no way that I could afford to buy our house now.
don groves
m...@privacy.net poured forth...
Double Oy!ed, sheesh. I'l go along with the second but what
examples did you have in mind for the first.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
Tony Cooper
wrote:
Are stocks and bonds considered personal property?
don groves
Cooper at tony_co...@earthlink.net poured forth...
Yes. Even if not, you're shirley not suggesting that one needs a
license to sell stock? I can call our broker any time I want and
say sell. Or, I can sell to my neighbor, if we agree on a price.
Any bank will handle the details.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>In article <0lsem0tc9vefr3ppu...@4ax.com>, Tony
>Cooper at tony_co...@earthlink.net poured forth...
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:44:22 -0700, don groves <dgr...@domain.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <2soj4lF...@uni-berlin.de>, Areff at
>> >m...@privacy.net poured forth...
>> >> don groves wrote:
>> >> > Same here, no one needs a license to sell any kind of personal
>> >> > property
>> >>
>> >> Oy! (several counterexamples come to mind), and
>> >>
>> >> > including real estate.
>> >>
>> >> Oy! (Real estate isn't personal property!)
>> >
>> >Double Oy!ed, sheesh. I'l go along with the second but what
>> >examples did you have in mind for the first.
>>
>> Are stocks and bonds considered personal property?
>
>Yes. Even if not, you're shirley not suggesting that one needs a
>license to sell stock?
Yes, I believe you do.
> I can call our broker any time I want and
>say sell.
But you don't sell the stock. You instruct your broker to sell the
stock. He acts as your agent in the buying and selling of stock.
> Or, I can sell to my neighbor, if we agree on a price.
Again, you may make the deal, but the bank actually handles the
transaction, and the representative at the bank is a registered,
licensed broker.
>Any bank will handle the details.
I'm not sure if what I'm saying applies to all types of stock. If you
form a privately owned corporation and issue 100 shares, you may be
able to sell those shares to another individual in a transaction that
you handle yourself. However, if you want to buy or sell stock in
something like IBM, you deal with a licensed agent.
the Omrud
> don groves wrote:
>
> > In article <2sofkoF...@uni-berlin.de>, Mike Lyle at
> > mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk poured forth...
>
> > > >> I had a friend who got his license just for buying and selling
> > > his >> own homes.
> > > >
> > > > That's what I had in mind when I took almost all of the courses
> > > > required for a broker's license. That, and using up my veterans'
> > > > education dollars. I never followed through on it, but I learned
> > > > a lot.
> > >
> > > In Britain, you don't need a licence for that: you can sell your
> > > house privately, just as you might sell your car. Even the lawyer
> > > bit is dead easy (I've done it), as you just need to buy a
> > > conveyancing pack from any of a number of willing sellers.
>
> That's true, but good luck getting the other agent to split the
> commission.
What other agent? In an English house sale (ignoring multiple agency
contracts), there is only one agent involved, who receives all the
commission for selling the house. If there's no agent then there's
no commission.
Are you thinking of the conveyancing? There's no commission involved
in conveyancing, just a fee payable by each side to their own lawyer
or conveyancer.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Default User typed thus:
>
>> don groves wrote:
>>
>> > In article <2sofkoF...@uni-berlin.de>, Mike Lyle at
>> > mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk poured forth...
>>
>> > > >> I had a friend who got his license just for buying and selling
>> > > his >> own homes.
>> > > >
>> > > > That's what I had in mind when I took almost all of the courses
>> > > > required for a broker's license. That, and using up my veterans'
>> > > > education dollars. I never followed through on it, but I learned
>> > > > a lot.
>> > >
>> > > In Britain, you don't need a licence for that: you can sell your
>> > > house privately, just as you might sell your car. Even the lawyer
>> > > bit is dead easy (I've done it), as you just need to buy a
>> > > conveyancing pack from any of a number of willing sellers.
>>
>> That's true, but good luck getting the other agent to split the
>> commission.
>
>What other agent? In an English house sale (ignoring multiple agency
>contracts), there is only one agent involved, who receives all the
>commission for selling the house. If there's no agent then there's
>no commission.
>
In the US, there are one or two agents involved. The "listing agent"
is the agent that gets the listing and shows the house. The other
agent is the agent the buyer works with. If I want to look for a
house, one agent might take me to five houses that are each listed by
different agents. I'm not required to contact each of the five
listing agents. The agent I work with may show me houses where he is
also the listing agent, but that's not required.
The agent that I work with is not called the "buyer's agent" because
that term is reserved for an agent that works exclusively for buyers
and does not have listings.
I can go through an agent to buy a house that is not listed.
Sometimes a seller will agree to protect agents. That means that he
will pay the showing agent a commission if he brings a buyer, but he
will also show and sell the house to anyone that comes to him
directly.
Areff
> Are stocks and bonds considered personal property?
Yes. (I think Don meant something else by 'personal property', but I'm
not really sure what -- things you usually keep in your home? Folks Coop's
age and older are known to hold on to their stock certificates (the rest
of us let our brokerage firms allow us to think that there's some
certificate out there that we own).
In legal usage, personal property is just any property other than land,
more or less.
--
Sara Lorimer
> I thought Oakland had some lower-income and middle-income sections.
> There has to be somewhere that the policemen, garbage men, janitors,
> and laborers live. I can't see a school janitor qualifying for a
> $340,000 house or driving 90 minutes to work.
...which is why the school janitor rents.
--
SML
Areff
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 22:36:59 -0700, don groves <dgr...@domain.net>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are stocks and bonds considered personal property?
>>
>>Yes. Even if not, you're shirley not suggesting that one needs a
>>license to sell stock?
>
> Yes, I believe you do.
>
>> I can call our broker any time I want and
>>say sell.
>
> But you don't sell the stock. You instruct your broker to sell the
> stock. He acts as your agent in the buying and selling of stock.
>
>> Or, I can sell to my neighbor, if we agree on a price.
>
> Again, you may make the deal, but the bank actually handles the
> transaction,
Not if the bank doesn't itself hold the stock. Nowadays most people have
brokerage accounts in which stock is held "in street name" (bwaha), which
means that in reality the brokerage owns the stock but pretends that you
own it (presumably there's some sort of trust relationship in all the
fine print in your brokerage firm agreement). But even today you can pay a
fee to your brokerage firm and have them send you the actual stock
certificate.
> and the representative at the bank is a registered,
> licensed broker. However, if you want to buy or sell stock in
> something like IBM, you deal with a licensed agent.
Not if you're a very small-scale sort of buyer or seller not going through
a broker, if I'm not mistaken. If you have a stock certificate you can
endorse it over to someone. If you do this in exchange for money, you've
sold someone the stock. No license.
Now if you started doing this as a sort of business, then I think at a
certain point you'd be subject to SEC regulation and you'd have to be
licensed and so forth.
--
Sara Lorimer
> However, I'm currently living in the 24th Largest City in
> America and I can tell you that supermarkets here are just as expensive as
> those in Chicago, which were surprisingly equivalent to Manhattan's
> supposedly price-gouging supermarkettes pricewise. I happen to believe
> that the supposed greater expensiveness (= BrE 'dearness') of New York
> City is, to a large degree, a myth.
I've lived in many parts of the country, and groceries do seem to cost
just about the same everywhere (or at least in the parts I've shopped
in). But other expenses can vary greatly: rent, public transportation,
entertainment, and -- hello New York, I'm talking about you -- taxes.
--
SML
Skitt
> Default User typed thus:
>> don groves wrote:
>>>> In Britain [...] you can sell your
>>>> house privately, just as you might sell your car. Even the lawyer
>>>> bit is dead easy (I've done it), as you just need to buy a
>>>> conveyancing pack from any of a number of willing sellers.
>>
>> That's true, but good luck getting the other agent to split the
>> commission.
>
> What other agent? In an English house sale (ignoring multiple agency
> contracts), there is only one agent involved, who receives all the
> commission for selling the house. If there's no agent then there's
> no commission.
>
> Are you thinking of the conveyancing? There's no commission involved
> in conveyancing, just a fee payable by each side to their own lawyer
> or conveyancer.
In our last real estate ownership transfer there was only one lawyer
involved, and his fee was $605. There was another $280 paid to the county
for transfer tax and recording.
Skitt
> the Omrud wrote:
>> Default User typed thus:
>>> don groves wrote:
>>>>>>> I had a friend who got his license just for buying and selling
>>>>>>> his >> own homes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I had in mind when I took almost all of the courses
>>>>>> required for a broker's license. That, and using up my veterans'
>>>>>> education dollars. I never followed through on it, but I learned
>>>>>> a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Britain, you don't need a licence for that: you can sell your
>>>>> house privately, just as you might sell your car. Even the lawyer
>>>>> bit is dead easy (I've done it), as you just need to buy a
>>>>> conveyancing pack from any of a number of willing sellers.
>>>
>>> That's true, but good luck getting the other agent to split the
>>> commission.
>>
>> What other agent? In an English house sale (ignoring multiple agency
>> contracts), there is only one agent involved, who receives all the
>> commission for selling the house. If there's no agent then there's
>> no commission.
>>
> In the US, there are one or two agents involved. The "listing agent"
> is the agent that gets the listing and shows the house.
The listing agent does not necessarily have to be the one who shows the
house. I had an agent for buying our house in Florida, and she was the only
one present when we looked at houses. I don't believe that she was the
listing agent for any of them. Anyway, that's what lock boxes are for -- to
give access to other agents.
> The other
> agent is the agent the buyer works with. If I want to look for a
> house, one agent might take me to five houses that are each listed by
> different agents. I'm not required to contact each of the five
> listing agents. The agent I work with may show me houses where he is
> also the listing agent, but that's not required.
Right.
> The agent that I work with is not called the "buyer's agent" because
> that term is reserved for an agent that works exclusively for buyers
> and does not have listings.
--