Bi Level and Two Storey Homes
Goldfinger
me few bi level homes he explained this to me and see if that made
sense to you guys.
He said he likes bi level homes more than two storey homes. For
example, a 1300 sq ft Bi Level will sell for about the same as a 1800
two storey home. With the basement developed, a 1300 sq ft Bi Level
will have about 2500 sq usable space which is roughly the same as a
1800+700(basement) two storey home.
He said the usable space is roughly the same between bi levels and two
storeys but the bi levels occupy larger lots because of the larger
base. So he said a comparable bi level is more valuable than a
similar two storey.
Does it make sense to you? What's you opinion on bi levels and two
storeys? Thanks.
Peter D
convection and radiation from the attic space makes the bedrooms hotter
in the summer, costing more to cool them. There is no real gain in the
Winter from rising heat over a bi-level.
I have always liked a 4-level split. Great if you have kids (less stair
to fall down) and about equal to a bi-level in below level lighting and
heating.
--
Peter D
Goldfinger wrote in message ...
Pat
level in our house really cool, and the heat from our fireplace rises in the
winter and keeps the upper level warmer than the main. Kind of best of both
worlds. Maybe we lucked out.
An 1800 sq 2 storey home should have more than a 700 sq main level (and, as
such, basement). Our house is 1550 and we have a 650 sq basement. All our
square footage is over our garage in our bonus room. Take that out and our
home is a 1200 square foot house...
"Peter D" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
news:welK7.46314$J62.8...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
tnr
@home.com says...
It makes "sense" from the point of view that all he is saying is that
for the same square footage of developed living area a bi-level occupies
more ground than a two story and therefore has a bigger basement which
can be developed. It also means you have less ground for other purposes,
such as a backyard. So your question really is: what is more valuable
usable lot space or basement space. You'd need to do a survey of buyers
to knwo the answer and I suspect it is location dependent as well.
Michael Yardley
> My mind was set on buying a two storey home but after my agent showed
> me few bi level homes he explained this to me and see if that made
> sense to you guys.
Realtors are full of BS, I was one for 12 years, you buy what you
want. Look at the advantages and Dis-vantages of the type of house you
want. Ask the salesperson who told you this to show you their dollar
volume for the year, where are they on the MLA statistics? Bottom with
this person, as they are not selling to your needs and talking to you
about their needs. When you deal with a realtor only deal with the
listing agent. That way you can deal on the commission, and the
realtor makes more, will put you offer in first, if it theirs. When I
sold house's you showed the buyers only three house's. You should be
making offers on the third house. Buyers are liars and most realtors
only deal with them from calls off the for sale sign which is the way
to go
MY
dismantler@hotmail.com The Dismantler!
Like one of the other posts said: Buy what YOU want.
Consider:
2 story = basement = more storage space + potential for more rooms.
bi-level = LIMITED storage space, NO potential for more rooms.
This of course, is my view. (I capitalized the words to emphasize, not
"shout")
I'm sure others will differ, but after all, this is a public forum.
:-)
"Goldfinger" <goldfin...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lrpjvtodhflipbi4d...@4ax.com...
tnr
yar...@cotse.com says...
> Goldfinger <goldfin...@home.com> wrote in message news:<lrpjvtodhflipbi4d...@4ax.com>...
> > My mind was set on buying a two storey home but after my agent showed
> > me few bi level homes he explained this to me and see if that made
> > sense to you guys.
>
> Realtors are full of BS, I was one for 12 years, you buy what you
> want. Look at the advantages and Dis-vantages of the type of house you
> want. Ask the salesperson who told you this to show you their dollar
> volume for the year, where are they on the MLA statistics? Bottom with
> this person, as they are not selling to your needs and talking to you
> about their needs. When you deal with a realtor only deal with the
> listing agent. That way you can deal on the commission, and the
> realtor makes more, will put you offer in first, if it theirs. When I
>
Question: what happens with respect to a commission when a buyer with an
agent wants to buy a house being sold by the owner without an agent?
fred mathering
being in the house business for a long time, I would never buy a split, far
to many stairs, no one room large enough for family get together and they
generally do not sell as well
R. Henry
more of a problem.....
"fred mathering" <senio...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bfa...@news.cybersurf.net...
John Fleming
> me few bi level homes he explained this to me and see if that made
> sense to you guys.
>
> He said he likes bi level homes more than two storey homes. For
> example, a 1300 sq ft Bi Level will sell for about the same as a 1800
> two storey home. With the basement developed, a 1300 sq ft Bi Level
> will have about 2500 sq usable space which is roughly the same as a
> 1800+700(basement) two storey home.
As others have pointed out, it sounds like the Realtor is more interested in
what he would buy.
That is not necessarily the right home for you.
You obviously have reasons for liking a two story, and unless those reasons
are also met by a bilevel, stick with a two story.
> He said the usable space is roughly the same between bi levels and two
> storeys but the bi levels occupy larger lots because of the larger
> base. So he said a comparable bi level is more valuable than a
> similar two storey.
Say again? Occupy a larger lot?
Depends on how the lots were zoned where the home is built.
A lot of newer neighbourhoods have more two stories, and I suspect that is
partly because it is the only way to get a larger home onto a smaller lot.
> Does it make sense to you? What's you opinion on bi levels and two
> storeys? Thanks.
Pick the one that is right for you.
Personally, I'd take a split over either any day--but that's me. And hat
works for me isn't necessarily going to work for you; neither is what works
for your Realtor.
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
"Keeping in Touch With the
Young People of America."
John Fleming
> being in the house business for a long time, I would never buy a split,
far
> to many stairs, no one room large enough for family get together and they
> generally do not sell as well
Not when I was in the business.
A bilevel is a really like a bungalow with the basement raised far enough
out of the ground so you can have some decent windows. Means, when you
enter, to get to the main floor you need to climb a half a flight of stairs.
That is distinctly different from a split.
> Goldfinger <goldfin...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:lrpjvtodhflipbi4d...@4ax.com...
> > My mind was set on buying a two storey home but after my agent showed
> > me few bi level homes he explained this to me and see if that made
> > sense to you guys.
dabee
having lots of half stairs here and there just wastes space, IMHO and it
wrecks the flow of nature (if you believe in feng shui stuff) ...
Most bi-levels have the basement 'finished' ... that doesn't really mean
more space.
What your realtor may be trying to say that is true though, is that a lot of
the value of houses for sale has to do with lot size. So, if bi-levels tend
to be on larger lots ... that's what you're paying for, not for the house
itself.
I've never thought a bi-level could be bigger than a 2 level ...
It also depends on your family configuration too. Do you need a seperate
space, and how much? I mean that, if you want to RENT out a suite, you're
probably better off with a whole 2 level. Usually the basement of bi-levels
are used as rec-rooms ... though they can also be used as an office ...
depends on the size ...
Your calculation doesn't make sense to me, or i'm not getting it. in a
bi-level, it should be 1300+700 (not 1800+700) to = 2100 sf . ? no? compared
to 2500 2 level ...
"Goldfinger" <goldfin...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lrpjvtodhflipbi4d...@4ax.com...
rEvInMiSTaHbLaCk
tnr <t...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.16644fa07b576e7f989982@news...
> Question: what happens with respect to a commission when a buyer with an
> agent wants to buy a house being sold by the owner without an agent?
>
Anyone who would use a realtor when they don't have to is silly. Strike a
deal with the homeowner as to who pays the lawyer, and cut the bloodsucking
realtor out of the equation.
verita...@here.com
John, is their ANY field which you HAVEN'T been in?? However, I fully
agree with your explanation of what a bi-level house is.
tnr
hellsk...@diablo.com says...
Not going to do much good if you are the seller and dealing with a buyer
who has an agent.
John Fleming
>
> Mind if I ask you a rather personal question? It seems to me real
> estate is a pretty lucrative business. An average transaction will
> net you at least a couple grands. Of course, you incur some overheads
> but it seems to me you only need to close one deal to survive in this
> business.
It's potentially lucrative--like many sales occupations.
That doesn't mean a lot of Realtors make a lot of money.
Back when I was flogging houses in 93/94, the figure I heard for average
annual commissions for a Realtor was something like $13,000.
When you consider some of the top Realtors are netting $200,000+ in annual
commissions, well, you get the picture.
Now, here in Alberta, the actual commission is open to negotiation between
the seller and the listing Realtor.
To use a number that is often tossed around, let's say the listing Realtor
negotiates a 7% commission on a home, and the home sells for $100,000.
That means there is a $7,000 commission on the deal. Sounds nice, doesn't
it. But here is where the fun begins.
That commission gets split four four ways. The listing Realtor gets a
chunk. The listing Realtor's company (e.g., Century 21) gets a chunk. The
selling Realtor gets a chunk. And the selling Realtor's company (e.g.,
Sutton Group) gets a chunk.
Those four chunks aren't necessarily the same size.
When the listing Realtor lists the home, the Realtor will offer a split with
the selling Realtor. For our 7% commission above, let's say the listing
Realtor offers 3%. That leaves 4% for the listing Realtor to split with his
company.
Let's say our listing Realtor is in a split commission arrangement with his
comapny (as opposed to a 100% commission to Realtor and Realtor pays a
monthly desk fee kind of arrangement). And to keep the math simple, lets
say it's a 50/50 split.
That means the listing Realtor gets one half of four percent, or $2000 from
the sale.
> Could you provide me some real figures how much on average an agent
> could make in a month? How many deals can you close on an average
> month? I'm just curious, thanks.
How much could a Realtor make in a month? How good are your sales skills
and how hard do you want to work?
To make a comfortable living selling houses, a Realtor really needs to close
two to three deals a month. By deals, I mean bringing a seller and a buyer
together so a house changes hands. (Realtors don't sell houses--homeowners
sell houses. The Realtor does the negotiating on behalf of the seller or
buyer.)
If you want to be a top realtor pulling in annual commissions on the order
of $500,000, you are talking about closing three to five deals a week. By
the way, to help them do three to five deals a week, these top Realtors will
usually hire an assistant or two--people who take care of a lot of the
routine tasks that come with listing homes and finding buyers--arranging for
the sign, getting the listing paperwork into the real estate board, doing up
highlight sheets, handling phone calls, arranging appointments for the
Realtor, and so on.)
John Fleming
news:Sc%K7.33857$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <9thlj8$jnv$2@.mindspring.net>, John Fleming says...
> >
> >
> >There are lots of fields I have never worked in.
> >
> >Real estate, however, is one that I have. And if I'd been a better
> >salesman, I might still be working in that field.
> >
>
> Hmm, let me try this again -
>
>
> Don't feel to bad about it, you're probably a better person for getting
out of
> that business. Most so called *successful* real-estate agents I
> know are nothing but conscienceless slugs that would sell out their
> grandmothers,
> kind of like used car salesmen.
A lot of Realtors work really hard on behalf of their clients, whether their
clients are sellers or buyers.
I won't disagree there are Realtors who are conscienceless slugs who would
sell out their grandmothers.
There are also a lot of Realtors who are fine people to do business with.
In many ways, choosing a Realtor to work with is a lot like picking a lot of
other professionals to work with. Do your homework and find one that is
right for you.
Ask friends who recently sold or bought property for their
recommendations--you can bet if your friend felt screwed by their Realtor,
they aren't going to be in too much of a hurry to recommend said Realtor.
At the same time, if they felt their Realtor got them a good deal, they will
be more likely to make a recommendation.
Remember, a lot of business in Real Estate comes by referral, and a good
Realtor is going to hamper his or her referral business by selling clients
down the creek.
His Divine Shadow
> Personally, and according to feng shui, bi-levels are not that great ...
> having lots of half stairs here and there just wastes space, IMHO and it
> wrecks the flow of nature (if you believe in feng shui stuff) ...
> Most bi-levels have the basement 'finished' ... that doesn't really mean
> more space.
Yesssssss. Feng Shui. Japanese for 'Sucker'.
--
His Shadow
"We know nothing except through logical analysis, and if we reject
that sole connection with reality, we might as well stop trying to be
adults and retreat into the capricious dream-world of infantility."
-HPL, letter to Robert E. Howard, 8/16/1932
dabee
entitled to their own opinions ...
"His Divine Shadow" <his_divi...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:B821EADB.12B9A%his_divi...@bigmailbox.net...
Ocean
This will make a big difference in how much a realtor will make. Also, it
used to be that MLS was 7% and exclusive was 3% ( but I hear it is lower
now) and then it was changed to also include the value of the house. For
example if the house was worth say 200,000.00 then the first 100,000.00
would have been charged out at say 7% and then the next 50,000 was say 3%
etc. etc. but then I have been away from it for so long I can't really
remember what the amounts were/is but I think they still do this today.
dabee
hate how it works. And honestly, I think there's more 'bad guys' than there
are 'good guys' ...it's such a cutthroat kind of job ... ugh. yeh ... best
is to find someone you know, who's had a good experience with a particular
realtor ...
"John Fleming" <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:9ti4sr$sc5$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
His Divine Shadow
> I believe that's chinese , not japanese ... but whatever, everyone is
> entitled to their own opinions ...
...but not their own facts.
--
His Shadow
"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for
knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination
of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and
improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it
doesn't work."
-- James Randi
Anonymous
>
>Real estate is a bitch. I hate it. I hate most of the people in it. I
>hate how it works. And honestly, I think there's more 'bad guys' than there
>are 'good guys' ...it's such a cutthroat kind of job ... ugh. yeh ... best
>is to find someone you know, who's had a good experience with a particular
>realtor ...
It used to be ok. The problem is to many Chinese and East Indian Sale's people
started moving in and slashing the commisions. I saw a $1,000,000 home listed
for only $5000 commission once, I could not beleive it. The main buyers in the
last fice years have been the Chinese and East Indians. The burn out rate is
very high with realtors. The lady realtors get fat and age very fast. It is not
a health industry because it is cut throat. The best lady realtor in North
America is Mindy Mactherson out in Mission. The best one dollar down realtor was
me. I sold over two hundred houses for no money down. Listing is the name name
of the game. You have to get the listings to survive. You have to know how to
drive the prices down in slow markets and list high in the not to often boom
markets, when verybody and this dog wants to be a realtor as they figure you can
make a fast buck. The truth is that the sales and purchaser's are the biggest
crooks, not the realtors as you figure. The sellers are to greedy and the
purchaers are liers and day dream and waste your time. It is not the perfect
job. Some realtors do make big money. Only a very few. Mindy used to be top as
she would buy other realtors sales to get her dollar volume up so she could stay
top. She was a lister. Once she had the lsiting you would never see her again
unless she came with an offer. Being a realtor to day is a good career choice,
but you need a years salary in the bank. The reality is most realtors starve to
death and have a job on the side which they are not supposed to, but they do.
Many of the Chineses Realors are Driving instructors like Wilkey Chow. MY
ide...@mac.com
What fucking planet are you from?
I am thinking that you are working in the Vancouver market. Is Chinese or Indian
Canadian currency different?
What a complete dipwad.
And an anonymous email is gutsy too! Nice touch twit.
------
Peter D
generalizations, and the general proof that far from being a great
seller you're actually a total moron...
What's wrong with gettting paid $5000 to sell a home? If it's priced
right, it'll sell fast. Why should you expect more? I mean if it's the
usual whine that a more expensive house needs more work, bullshit. If
you believe that, you can't sell. If it's the rather awkwardly presented
excuse that the more expensive sales pay for all the cheap crap you
sell, why should any seller pay for you to work for another seller? Let
them pay for it themselves.
So, why is $5000 not a bad chunk of change for selling a home?
Anonymous wrote in message ...
dabee
money you HAVE to make per month in order for them to maintain their 'high
standard profile' to the public eye ... which causes some realtors to HAVE
to charge certain prices in order to be allowed to keep using re/max logos
and signs above their name ...
"Trevor" <du...@nottelling.nul> wrote in message
news:MPG.16674a3d5...@news.shawcable.com...
> x-no-archive:yes
> On the last house we sold, I used a friend of my wife who is a Remax
> agent. I tried to get the commission down below 7%, but was led to
> believe that his Remax office wouldn't permit it. Remax mandating a 7%
> commision - Fact or fiction?
> I'm amazed at how some of these supposedly popular agents continue to
> interchange the words "marketing" and "selling" as if they were the
> same. I don't have much faith in the competence of many realtors. It
> seems as though it's a closed little clique that protects its interests
> at every opportunity - witness the failure of reduced commission realty
> outlets - I'm thinking Donna vanLier here - now back in the ReMax fold.
> Your thoughts?
dabee
standard and when they're undermined then they feel ...... like it's unfair?
Take for example, in a chinese restaurant, they will hire some old chinese
guy for full time dishwashing and pay him like 500 bux a month, way below
minimum wage ... and mr. joe blow won't have that job ... because he costs
too much, at minimum wage. plus mr. joe blow will demand health benefits,
insurance, blah blah blah ... but they know this chinese guy won't say
anythin, cos he probably can't speak english, can't get a job elsewhere, and
has never expereinced the luxury of government paid healthcare or benefits
and such from his home country be it china, hk, japan, whatever ...
we are so lucky to have many things that we take it for granted and demand
too much sometimes ... i think. ... maybe i'm just off topic... (=
"Peter D" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
news:dUlL7.6087$aF4.1...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
dabee
"His Divine Shadow" <his_divi...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:B823089E.12BCC%his_divi...@bigmailbox.net...
John Fleming
news:eXdL7.25404$Gr1.9...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> John don't forget to include MLS and exclusive listings in your comments.
> This will make a big difference in how much a realtor will make.
There were a lot of things I didn't include, jsut to avoid complicating the
picture.
Also, it
> used to be that MLS was 7% and exclusive was 3% ( but I hear it is lower
> now)
If it was, that was long before my time.
The thing is, a real estate board can't fix the commission on an MLS
listing--competition act. Therefore the commission must be open to
negotiation between the seller and the listing Realtor.
The difference between MLS and exclusive is that with MLS any member of the
real estate board can show the property. With an exlusive listing, only
Realtors with the listing firm (i.e., the company the listing Realtor works
for) can show the property *unless* the listing firm gives a Realtor from a
competing firm permission to show.
Like MLS, firms must be willing to negotiate the commission with the seller,
otherwist they run the risk of being dragged on the carpet under
anticompetition legislation--particularly if every firm is charging the same
commission.
> and then it was changed to also include the value of the house. For
> example if the house was worth say 200,000.00 then the first 100,000.00
> would have been charged out at say 7% and then the next 50,000 was say 3%
> etc. etc.
Again, quite accurate. I left this out of my example to simplify my
illustration--that is, how the real estate commission gets split up.
> but then I have been away from it for so long I can't really
> remember what the amounts were/is but I think they still do this today.
I talked with another person who sold real estate for the same company I did
recently, and he was saying the picture in the industry is quite different
than it was ten years ago.
On the one hand, there are these discount operations--essentially the seller
pays a low commission to get the MLS listing, but otherwise is on their own
re: advertising and finding a buyer.
On the other hand, the costs to a Realtor are now much higher because home
owners are more likely to expect things like a 30 second time slot every day
on one of these real estate channels.
Basically, what it comes down to is this. If a Realtor is going to expect a
high commission, they are going to have to do a very good job at justifying
it. That is, Realtors are going to have to be able to provide services to
the seller that the seller can't provide for themselves, and they are going
to have to show the seller that these extra services are value added.
John Fleming
news:MPG.16674a3d5...@news.shawcable.com...
>
> > It's potentially lucrative--like many sales occupations.
> >
> > That doesn't mean a lot of Realtors make a lot of money.
> >
> > Back when I was flogging houses in 93/94, the figure I heard for average
> > annual commissions for a Realtor was something like $13,000.
>
That, and selling real estate does require some high calibre selling skills.
Throw in, as well, that may Realtors really only work part time (i.e., they
have a day job to help pay the rent and put food on the table).
> > When you consider some of the top Realtors are netting $200,000+ in
annual
> > commissions, well, you get the picture.
> >
> > Now, here in Alberta, the actual commission is open to negotiation
between
> > the seller and the listing Realtor.
>
> On the last house we sold, I used a friend of my wife who is a Remax
> agent. I tried to get the commission down below 7%, but was led to
> believe that his Remax office wouldn't permit it. Remax mandating a 7%
> commision - Fact or fiction?
I was never affiliated with Remax in any way, so I can't do more than guess
at their office policies.
That said, at the time I was in the field, my understanding is that most (if
not all) Remas offices here in the Edmonton area were full commission
houses. That is, the Realtor got all the buyer/ seller side of the
commission (depending on which side of the deal the Realtor was on) and paid
the firm a monthly desk fee. Given that kind of a commission structure, I
can't really see Remax caring too much what commission the Realtor
negotiates with the seller--as long as they are getting the monthly desk
fee.
Now, I should explain how this full commission/ desk fee arrangement works.
In the full commission house, the agency charges the Realtor a flat monthly
fee. In return, the Realtor gets to say he or she is affiliated with the
company and can put the company name on their signs and business cards. The
company also, I expect, lets the Realtor put the company number on the
business cards and will pass on phone messages. The Realtor pays all the
other business expenses associated with his or her real estate
activites--e.g., advertising costs--and in return gets to keep all the
commissions from his or her side of the transaction.
To illustrate. Say Remax charges the Realtor $500 per month as a desk fee.
(The actual amount is will vary from office to office.)
The Realtor will pay the Remax office $500 every month whether the Realtor
sells a house or not. That is, if the Realtor earns $1000 in commissions
in one month, the Remax office gets $500 and the Realtor gets $500. On the
other hand, if the Realtor earns $5,000 in commissions, the Remax office
still gets $500 and the Realtor gets $4500. (Yes, there is a reason why a
lot of the top Realtors are with Remax.)
> I also didn't think much of his negotiating skills - I essentially
> dictated our purchase price of the new house from the outset. For 7%, I
> was (and remain) wholly unsatisified with the services offered.
If his justification for 7% is that his office won't go any lower, than I am
inclined to agree with you. There are some good reasons for letting the
Realtor have a good commission, and I will touch on one of them a bit later.
> <snip really good detail of where the commission gos>
>
> So John, in your experience, what is a typical range of commissions that
> one could hope to negotiate? What are the determining factors in
> settling on the commision amount? What bearing, if any, do popularity
> of neighbourhood/house , experience level of listing realtor , agnency
> selected (Remax / Century 21) play in determining the actual reduced
> commission?
One of the big factors in setting a commission has to do with chunk offered
to the selling Realtor. Now, when I was in the industry, the selling
commission offered to the selling Realtor ranged between 3 and 3.5%. The
actual number tended to reflect the popularity of the neighbourhood and the
quality of the listing. If houses move quickly in a given neighbourhood,
there is less incentive to offer a higher selling commission. If the house
is a poor quality listing (e.g., a little over priced), there is a bit of an
incentive to offer a slightly higher selling commission.
Now, here's why the selling commission is so important. Suppose you are a
Realtor showing homes to a fine couple in a neighbourhood. Say there are
five comparable homes in this neighbourhood, and you are going to show three
of them to your prospective buyers. Now, say the selling commissions on the
five homes are 3.5%, 3.5%, 3.25%, 3% and 2.5%. (That is, two hoes have a
3.5% selling commission, one has a 3.25% selling commission, etc.) Which
three homes are you going to show? Remember, all five could potentially
satisfy your buyer. (BTW, next time you are working with a Realtor, ask him
or her to point out the selling commissions in the MLS catalog--unless
something has changed since I was in the industry, there will be an entry
for each property near the bottom of the desicription that reads something
like 3.5/100 1.5/B (3.5% on the first $100,000, 1.5% on anything over
$100,000).)
The thing is, if the listing Realtor doesn't offer a competitive selling
commission, the listing Realtor can't count on other Realtors showing the
property, and is stuck doing a solo gig trying to find a buyer.
> I'm amazed at how some of these supposedly popular agents continue to
> interchange the words "marketing" and "selling" as if they were the
> same.
You're right, selling and marketing are two different concepts.
> I don't have much faith in the competence of many realtors.
Understandably.
In the past ten years, there has been some effort made to address your
concern. A couple of years after I left the field, a requiment for
mandatory annual upgrading was brought in for all Realtors. That is,
Realtors had to start taking a minimum number of hours of continuing
education every year to keep their licences.
Whether it is enough might be debatable. I'm not in a position to judge.
> It
> seems as though it's a closed little clique that protects its interests
> at every opportunity - witness the failure of reduced commission realty
> outlets - I'm thinking Donna vanLier here - now back in the ReMax fold.
There may be a certain validity to that.
But, like any other industry, the practitioner has to earn his or her
stripes. That means either bringing a stream of good listings to market,
finding a good number of qualified buyers, or both. Once you have started
developing your reputation, it is easier to get listings and find buyers.
But consider another field--information technology. It's easier to find a
good job in the field once you have a couple of years of good solid
experience under your belt than it is when you are right out of NAIT.
Speaking of Donna van Lier, is she really back in the Remax fold? If memory
serves me right, the last time I saw her name, it was in an ad for a car
dealership.
John Fleming
news:dUlL7.6087$aF4.1...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
>
> right, it'll sell fast. Why should you expect more? I mean if it's the
> usual whine that a more expensive house needs more work, bullshit. If
> you believe that, you can't sell. If it's the rather awkwardly presented
> excuse that the more expensive sales pay for all the cheap crap you
> sell, why should any seller pay for you to work for another seller? Let
> them pay for it themselves.
I think that's why there is often a different commission on amounts over
$100,000 from amount under $100,000--for example, 7% on the first $100,000
and 3% on any amount over $100,000.
It costs the same amount to advertise a $60,000 home in Real Estate Weekly
as it does to advertise a $250,000 home.
If there is anything that will make it a bit more difficult to find a buyer
for a $250,000 home, it's that there are fewer people who can afford a
$250,000 home. (Let's see, 20% down = $50,000. The remainder financed as
at 6% mortgage = $1300 per month for 25 years. Since the typical Canadian
spends something like 30% of earnings on housing, suggests a typical buyer
for this home needs to be making close to $50,000 per year. I.e., to pay
for this property, you are going to have to make in excess of $25.00 per
hour working full time.)
jonny
the customers...haha
Goldfinger
>
> I think that's why there is often a different commission on amounts over
> $100,000 from amount under $100,000--for example, 7% on the first $100,000
> and 3% on any amount over $100,000.
>
> It costs the same amount to advertise a $60,000 home in Real Estate Weekly
> as it does to advertise a $250,000 home.
My sentiment exactly. Why should the realtor charge 7% or $7,000 to sell a
$100,000 property? Suppose your property is worth exactly $100,000 and for
$30 a week I could run an advertisment on the newspaper for couple months
and list my property at, say, $98,000. It'll take a little more time to
sell but not too many people are in a hurry selling their properties.
Recently, I met an owner at his own open house trying to sell his house
himself because he said he's fed up with the Realtor who couldn't sell his
house for 3 months. Now, he listed his house at a price less some $15,000
commission and he sold his house in one Sunday afternoon. He had to reject
couple offers above his asking price in the end and mine was one of them.
John Fleming
> "John Fleming" <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> news:9tl3jm$a94$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > I think that's why there is often a different commission on amounts over
> > $100,000 from amount under $100,000--for example, 7% on the first
$100,000
> > and 3% on any amount over $100,000.
> >
> > It costs the same amount to advertise a $60,000 home in Real Estate
Weekly
> > as it does to advertise a $250,000 home.
>
> My sentiment exactly. Why should the realtor charge 7% or $7,000 to sell
a
> $100,000 property? Suppose your property is worth exactly $100,000 and
for
> $30 a week I could run an advertisment on the newspaper for couple months
> and list my property at, say, $98,000. It'll take a little more time to
> sell but not too many people are in a hurry selling their properties.
Depends on the reason for the sale.
If you've been transferred to a companmy office in another city, you may not
have the option of waiting three months for a deal to close.
It may be impracticle, for example, to drive back to Edmonton from Calgary
three or four times a week to show a house to a buyer who may not even be
qualified. (If your Realtor is doing his or her job, the people they show
the home to should be able to come up with a reasonable downpayment and get
a mortgage.)
A bennefit of working through a Realtor is that the Realtor can do the
negotiating on your behalf. (Having a third party negotiate on your behalf
is something recommended in any book on negotiating I've ever read. For one
thing, a good third party negotiator is less likely to spill the beans on
anything that might weaken your negotiating position.
Of course, an experienced Realtor will also have a lot of good contacts with
mortgage brokers, appraisers, and even lawyers if needed. One of these
specialists may be needed to help pull a deal together.
So, if all the Realtor is doing is putting a sign in the lawn and an ad in
the paper, the Realtor isn't doing his or her job. Any FSBO can put an ad
in the paper and put a sign on the lawn.
The Realtor has to provide some value added over and above that.
Peter D
sell a home.
I listed a home for $119,900 and sold it six weeks later for $116,800. I
had been offered $116,900 24 hours after advertising it. Seems to me the
price was wrong to start with. Still, listed and sold at $119,900
through a Realtor wouldn't have netted me what I got, not close to it.
The realtors that swarmed me after I went to sell it offered all sorts
of reasons to sell it through them, and sell it for more, a few as much
as $10,000 more. I told every one of them bring me a contract that
clearly stated I netted $117,500 and they got the rest. That way, if
they were right and could sell it for $129,900, more power to them. If I
priced it right they'd still get $2,500. No-one, not one of them, took
the offer. Waste of my time and theirs!
--
Peter D
John Fleming wrote in message <9tmn5s$51v$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
JarHead
huts and eat donkey dung for breakfast, just like we Canadian's all live in
igloo's and harpoon baby seal's and whale's to eat!
Right!
the JarHead
"dabee" <band...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ncmL7.59511$Ud.29...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Peter D
> Oh, yeah... All those WOP's Gook's, Geek's, Nip's... They all live in
grass
>huts and eat donkey dung for breakfast, just like we Canadian's all
live in
>igloo's and harpoon baby seal's and whale's to eat!
Hey, don't you knock it. The fuzzy fur gets in your teeth, but otherwise
Baby Harp Seal is delish.
--
Peter D
Dave Martindale
>A bennefit of working through a Realtor is that the Realtor can do the
>negotiating on your behalf. (Having a third party negotiate on your behalf
>is something recommended in any book on negotiating I've ever read. For one
>thing, a good third party negotiator is less likely to spill the beans on
>anything that might weaken your negotiating position.
The trouble is, real estate agents really work for themselves, not you.
They get a commission, so they do have some incentive to sell for the
highest price they can get. On the other hand, the thing that's most
important to any business is profit per hour. If they can close a deal
with one of the first few potential buyers, when they haven't yet spent
a lot of time showing the place, that's going to be attractive to them.
Sure, they might get 5% or 10% higher price for you (and themselves) by
showing it to 2 or 3 times as many people - but that's not sensible for
them.
Dave
Peter D
For example, I'm thinking of selling my house (hate the snow, want a
condo!). It's probably worth around $100K. If I hire a Realtor, I'll pay
$7K+GST, so I'll net $92,500. None of the $7490 paid is tax deductible.
I have a 'baby mortgage' (owe about 35% of value) and that one-time fee
represents almost THREE YEARS of equity.
Selling it myself will probably cost me $500-$700 in expenses and take
10-40 hours of my time. If I earn $30/hr after tax/expenses on average,
I'm out of pocket $800-$1900. That represents about 3-8 months of
equity.
Now, if the Relator can get me more, I'd be happy. So, if (s)he wants to
sell it and guarantee me all I'll pay is my max costss, no problem. If
(s)he can sell it for more, I'd split it 60-40, maybe even 50-50. So, up
to $100K, 1.5%. $100K and above, 1.5% + 50% of over $100K.
To get his/her $7K, all the Realtor has to do is sell it for $111,000.
Seems to me if they are as good as they claim, making an extra $11K on
the sale should be a breeze. Of course, the really good ones that can
get $20K more, get a nice fat bonus of another $4500. Nice incentive,
only the best should apply. ;-)
--
Peter D
Dave Martindale wrote in message <9trhar$1dv$1...@trappist.cs.ubc.ca>...
Anonymous
>
>That's why I'd like to see a floating fee structure.
>
>For example, I'm thinking of selling my house (hate the snow, want a
>condo!). It's probably worth around $100K. If I hire a Realtor, I'll pay
>$7K+GST, so I'll net $92,500. None of the $7490 paid is tax deductible.
>I have a 'baby mortgage' (owe about 35% of value) and that one-time fee
>represents almost THREE YEARS of equity.
>
>Selling it myself will probably cost me $500-$700 in expenses and take
>10-40 hours of my time. If I earn $30/hr after tax/expenses on average,
>I'm out of pocket $800-$1900. That represents about 3-8 months of
>equity.
>
>Now, if the Relator can get me more, I'd be happy. So, if (s)he wants to
>sell it and guarantee me all I'll pay is my max costss, no problem. If
>(s)he can sell it for more, I'd split it 60-40, maybe even 50-50. So, up
>to $100K, 1.5%. $100K and above, 1.5% + 50% of over $100K.
>
>To get his/her $7K, all the Realtor has to do is sell it for $111,000.
>Seems to me if they are as good as they claim, making an extra $11K on
>the sale should be a breeze. Of course, the really good ones that can
>get $20K more, get a nice fat bonus of another $4500. Nice incentive,
>only the best should apply. ;-)
>--
>Peter D
balance. It is that way to meet the overhead of running a real estate office.
Doing it yourself is not easy. I use to list all the FIBO's for sale by owner
in he Vancouver Sun. Hire a good realtor in your local area and stave yourself
a big headache ]
Peter D
headache pills! :-)
--
Peter D
Anonymous wrote in message ...
|| taylorchuké’ž|I|"
"Peter D" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
> That's why I'd like to see a floating fee structure.
>
> For example, I'm thinking of selling my house (hate the snow, want a
> condo!). It's probably worth around $100K. I
**
No your cardboard rat infested shidhole is probably worth $200 on any bodies
market!
Quit inflating yer crap'
**
>
> Selling it myself will probably cost me $500-$700 in expenses and take
> 10-40 hours of my time. If I earn $30/hr after tax/expenses on average,
> I'm out of pocket $800-$1900. That represents about 3-8 months of
> equity.
>
**
You can't sell spit Jacko'!
$30 an hour after taxes...yeah' right... what streetcorner are you prying
your trade on?
**
> Now, if the Relator can get me more, I'd be happy. So, if (s)he wants to
> sell it and guarantee me all I'll pay is my max costss, no problem. If
> (s)he can sell it for more, I'd split it 60-40, maybe even 50-50. So, up
> to $100K, 1.5%. $100K and above, 1.5% + 50% of over $100K.
>
>
**
You wouldn't be happy no matter what anyone does for you Spanky!
You are a class F whiner!
**
To get his/her $7K, all the Realtor has to do is sell it for $111,000.
> Seems to me if they are as good as they claim, making an extra $11K on
> the sale should be a breeze. Of course, the really good ones that can
> get $20K more, get a nice fat bonus of another $4500. Nice incentive,
> only the best should apply. ;-)
> -
**
You just want to rip off any one who does work for you...ya' pinhead!
Peter D
in your hole-in-the-ground, Don? Time for the annual bedsheet washing, I
'll bet. <lol>
--
Peter D
|| taylorchuké’ž|I|" wrote in message ...
|| taylorchuké’ž|I|"
"Peter D" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
> Ah, Doni, my own personal little stalker-troll. How's the stink up there
> in your hole-in-the-ground, Don? Time for the annual bedsheet washing, I
> 'll bet. <lol>
> --
> Peter D
Sorry Spanky'..you are *my* personal little inbred stalker knob'.
My stank' is quite fine...thank you.
But your festering pit o' hell excuse of a house smells like a pizhole,
outhouse in the back of a crackwhores guest house!
ewwww' eeeee... some people just shouldn't breed... tie your tubes already
man' or burn the petrie dish for gawd sakes!
John Fleming
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:56:56 -0700, John Fleming offered the following:
[SNIP]
> > That, and selling real estate does require some high calibre selling
skills.
>
> I was under the impression that the number one key asset was a large
> social base from which to mine prospects. People skills (which go hand
> in hand with a social contact base) would be next, followed by sales
> skills, IMHO.
A large social base can give you a leg up.
But consider, the average person only moves something like once every seven
years. If you rely only on your social network, you'll be out of the
business soon enough.
To be really successful, you need to extend your network well beyond your
social contacts.
> > Throw in, as well, that may Realtors really only work part time (i.e.,
they
> > have a day job to help pay the rent and put food on the table).
>
> That is truly a sad statement on the nature of the real estate market.
Perhaps.
Could also be a reflection on the calibre of a lot of Realtors, and only
adds weight to the suggestion that you have to shop around.
Decide what is important.
If your Realtor is part time, you may only be competing with a couple of his
or her clients for his or her attention.
If your Realot is full time, you know the person has some A1 selling skills.
[snip]
> > That is, if the Realtor earns $1000 in commissions
> > in one month, the Remax office gets $500 and the Realtor gets $500. On
the
> > other hand, if the Realtor earns $5,000 in commissions, the Remax office
> > still gets $500 and the Realtor gets $4500. (Yes, there is a reason why
a
> > lot of the top Realtors are with Remax.)
>
> Pretty good reason indeed if you are good at the biz to go with Remax.
> Do you think that is still the structure (flat fee / month) at Remax ?
Been a while since I looked into it, but I expect it is still the way it
operates. It's one way to keep the good Realtor's on board.
[snip]
> > If his justification for 7% is that his office won't go any lower, than
I am
> > inclined to agree with you. There are some good reasons for letting the
> > Realtor have a good commission, and I will touch on one of them a bit
later.
>
> For the amount of work he did, I wouldn't say he earned it. He followed
> the 'show three houses bit though' (being in sales myself, I should have
> recognized the tactic, but I didn't suspect he would try anything sleazy
> because of what I knew about him)
Never a guarantee.
Still, some of the toughest people to sell to are former sales people. The
former sales people know a lot of the sales techniques; not well enough to
apply them effectively, but well enough to see them coming.
[It's part of the reason telephone solicitors hate me :) ]
[snip]
> Our last realtor did identify this and explain it thoroughly. Your
> illustration accurately depicts my memory of the explanations as well.
>
> What about a FSBO ? If I want to sell the house myself, obviously I
> would do need to look after all the advertising & marketing details as
> well. Therefore, I could offer a 3.0 or 3.5% commission to the buyers
> agent and that would be all ...???
Depends on what the Realtor is interested in.
The aim in dealing with a FSBO is to get the FSBO to list.
Besides, if the Realtor can convince you to list, and *then* provide the
buyer, the Realtor double ends the deal and pockets twice the commission.
(I.e., the whole 7% to split with his or company, and not just half of it.)
>: Now, a useful service to those doing
> FSBO would be accurate market evaluations. Of course, one could always
> solicit the opinions of the realtors in the market...
Not uncommon.
A lot of Realtors working the FSBOs will provide market evaluations. By
providing you with some services "free of charge", the Realtor is hoping
that, when you decide to list, you will list with him or her.
> > The thing is, if the listing Realtor doesn't offer a competitive selling
> > commission, the listing Realtor can't count on other Realtors showing
the
> > property, and is stuck doing a solo gig trying to find a buyer.
> >
> > > I'm amazed at how some of these supposedly popular agents continue to
> > > interchange the words "marketing" and "selling" as if they were the
> > > same.
> >
> > You're right, selling and marketing are two different concepts.
> >
> > > I don't have much faith in the competence of many realtors.
> >
> > Understandably.
> >
> > In the past ten years, there has been some effort made to address your
> > concern. A couple of years after I left the field, a requiment for
> > mandatory annual upgrading was brought in for all Realtors. That is,
> > Realtors had to start taking a minimum number of hours of continuing
> > education every year to keep their licences.
>
> Good. That doesn't necessarily address the over-population of realtors
> to the market. But that's what free enterprise is all about - let the
> market dictate who will survive.
No, but hopefully the idea is that the ones that are there are more likely
to have both professional oars in the water.
In the long run, continuing education bennefits everyone involved: Realtor,
Realtor's company, seller and buyer.
> It's interesting that the concept that Terry Paranych uses didn't show
> up much earlier - it's simplicity and certainty of success seems obvious
> to us all... 20/20 hindsight.
Well, the real estate market has changed a lot over the last ten years.
And I think the successful Realtor of tomorrow is the one who can think of
better ways to provide the traditional services.
A lot of services Realtors used to provide the owner can now easily do for
him or herself. Take highlight sheets, for example. In the pre-home PC
days, it would have been much harder for a homeowner to put together a good
highlight sheet. With a modern PC, a homeowner could go round a few open
houses, collect a few highlight sheets, and then do a reaonable one on the
home PC.
The Realtor's advantage is becoming services like TV marketing that are
beyond the reach of a typical homeowner.
> > Whether it is enough might be debatable. I'm not in a position to
judge.
> >
> > > It
> > > seems as though it's a closed little clique that protects its
interests
> > > at every opportunity - witness the failure of reduced commission
realty
> > > outlets - I'm thinking Donna vanLier here - now back in the ReMax
fold.
> >
> > There may be a certain validity to that.
> >
> > But, like any other industry, the practitioner has to earn his or her
> > stripes. That means either bringing a stream of good listings to
market,
> > finding a good number of qualified buyers, or both. Once you have
started
> > developing your reputation, it is easier to get listings and find
buyers.
>
> Like much in sales, its all about contacts. Virtually all my new
> business is referrals nowadays - that's the best type of lead you can
> get.
And that is very good.
For all business, in time, a lot of business should come in the form of
referral.
> > But consider another field--information technology. It's easier to find
a
> > good job in the field once you have a couple of years of good solid
> > experience under your belt than it is when you are right out of NAIT.
>
> And so many have been led down the path to unemployment by trusting NAIT
> or the UofA - investing 2, 3, or 4 years and then no job. Very sad.
> I'd like to see these institutions taking a responsibility for placement
> in the work field to remove the carrot of just grinding out as many
> graduates as they can - regardless of job vacancies.
I think there is a bit of buyer beware there.
The advanced education is a key that can help open some doors. But it is
never a guarantee of a good job.
If nothing else, the employment market responds to the changing economy. If
the economy is in a deep slump, grads are going to find it harder to get
jobs *regardless* of how good the program is or how high the student's
marks.
> > Speaking of Donna van Lier, is she really back in the Remax fold? If
memory
> > serves me right, the last time I saw her name, it was in an ad for a car
> > dealership.
>
> I believe you are right. She did switch back to Remax for a brief bit
> and then someone told me they saw her in a car dealer ad. She should
> have stayed in real estate - much less sleazy than car dealers IMHO -
> having just bought a new one last year. Know what car you want, then
> shop for the dealer / salesperson, then negotiate price.
>
> Thanks for the insight John.
You're welcome.
Goldfinger
"Peter D" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
>
> The realtors that swarmed me after I went to sell it offered all sorts
> of reasons to sell it through them, and sell it for more, a few as much
> as $10,000 more. I told every one of them bring me a contract that
> clearly stated I netted $117,500 and they got the rest. That way, if
> they were right and could sell it for $129,900, more power to them. If I
> priced it right they'd still get $2,500. No-one, not one of them, took
> the offer. Waste of my time and theirs!
From one of the Realtor's websites, the realtor listed the no.1 reason why
you should list with a Realtor instead of selling it yourslef - so that you
wouldn't be swarmed by Realtors offering to sell your house. LOL!
subdude
over Oct, 2000. Find out more at http://www2.jurock.com/insider/
>Moving to Calgary this spring. What are house prices like right now?
Any
input would be appreciated.
John Fleming
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:23:23 -0700, John Fleming offered the following:
>
> <snip>
>
> > If your Realtor is part time, you may only be competing with a couple of
his
> > or her clients for his or her attention.
>
> only job?
I think so. You are going to put your most valuable possession in his or
hands and get him or her to find a buyer for you. (Or, on the other side of
the deal, find a house for you.)
It will, of course, be the Realtor's job to prove, to your satisfaction,
that he or she can do a suitable job for you *and* keep the manager at
McDonalds (or wherever he or she works) happy.
> > > What about a FSBO ? If I want to sell the house myself, obviously I
> > > would do need to look after all the advertising & marketing details as
> > > well. Therefore, I could offer a 3.0 or 3.5% commission to the buyers
> > > agent and that would be all ...???
> >
> > Depends on what the Realtor is interested in.
> >
> > The aim in dealing with a FSBO is to get the FSBO to list.
>
> Listing is everything - right? No more (real) work to do , other than
> make sure the MLS ad goes in.
The thing with a listing is, once the house is listed, it's captive until
the listing expires. Assiming the property sells, you have your share of
the commission taken care of. And if you do a good job for the seller,
well, a lot of the time the seller will be looking for another place to buy,
so you have a motivated buyer who is more likely to work with you.
The problem with working with buyers is there is a bit less loyalty. A
buyer could be working with more than one Realtor (and watch the feather's
fly if two Realtors show the buyer the same house and the buyer buys. :> )
Doesn't mean there aren't some Realtors who don't spend time working almost
exclusively with buyers.
But you are right, lsitings are the name of the game.
> > Besides, if the Realtor can convince you to list, and *then* provide the
> > buyer, the Realtor double ends the deal and pockets twice the
commission.
> > (I.e., the whole 7% to split with his or company, and not just half of
it.)
> >
> > >: Now, a useful service to those doing
> > > FSBO would be accurate market evaluations. Of course, one could
always
> > > solicit the opinions of the realtors in the market...
> >
> > Not uncommon.
> >
> > A lot of Realtors working the FSBOs will provide market evaluations. By
> > providing you with some services "free of charge", the Realtor is hoping
> > that, when you decide to list, you will list with him or her.
>
> And when I go to sell this house, I'll be sure to use all those free
> services as one part of my marketing plan.
That's what a lot of FSBOs do.
> <snip>
>
> > > It's interesting that the concept that Terry Paranych uses didn't show
> > > up much earlier - it's simplicity and certainty of success seems
obvious
> > > to us all... 20/20 hindsight.
> >
> > Well, the real estate market has changed a lot over the last ten years.
> >
> > And I think the successful Realtor of tomorrow is the one who can think
of
> > better ways to provide the traditional services.
>
> New ideas seem to be scarce in the real estate world.
>
> > A lot of services Realtors used to provide the owner can now easily do
for
> > him or herself. Take highlight sheets, for example. In the pre-home PC
> > days, it would have been much harder for a homeowner to put together a
good
> > highlight sheet. With a modern PC, a homeowner could go round a few
open
> > houses, collect a few highlight sheets, and then do a reaonable one on
the
> > home PC.
>
> The real missing link is easy access to a MLS listing for the FSBO.
One of those discount realty outfits attempted to bridge that gap. For a
nominal commission of something like 2%, they'd list your property on MLS.
You got to do the rest of the work.
The problem with a 2% listing, of course, is that 2% is pretty low in the
selling commission business. Why should another company's Realtor show your
property--getting a shade under 2%--when the regularly listed properties are
carrying a selling commission of between 3% and 3.5%?
Now, there is another advantage to working with a Realtor for a national
firm--out of town referrals. If Joe Bloggins, Century 21 Realtor
extraordinaire in Thunder Bay, is working for a client who is moving to
Edmonton, odds are Joe Bloggins will help is client out by hooking said
client up with a Century 21 Realtor in Edmonton Odds are against a FSBO
seeing Joe Bloggin's client.
> > The Realtor's advantage is becoming services like TV marketing that are
> > beyond the reach of a typical homeowner.
>
> TV advertising is over hyped - a gew gaw to appease the seller IMHO.
> When I last listed, I harrassed my realtor to get the place on TV
> because he was doing so little. I have no faith in the medium and doubt
> its actual usefulness.
Perhaps, but it is an avenue to market a home, and it is one that is beyond
the reach of the typical home owner.
> I note that the local TV real estate channel on Shaw is now being
> discontinued - this no doubt by Shaw as they would rather put something
> in that valuable low band space that produces significant revenue. I'm
> sure Shaw doesn't enjoy chasing real estate agents for advertising
> receivables.
I wan't aware Shaw was discontinuing (I don't get cable), but you make a
good point.
Some Realtors are notorius for being tardy paying their advertising costs.
My sister-in-law has a lot of fun doing collections work on Realtors who
neglect to pay on their newspaper advertising without a "subtle" reminder.
Perhaps shaw can do without the collection headaches as well.
Goldfinger
> One of those discount realty outfits attempted to bridge that gap. For a
> nominal commission of something like 2%, they'd list your property on MLS.
> You got to do the rest of the work.
Are you talking about sellers-direct or the home book? I wonder how
effective would they be.
> The problem with a 2% listing, of course, is that 2% is pretty low in the
> selling commission business. Why should another company's Realtor show
your
> property--getting a shade under 2%--when the regularly listed properties
are
> carrying a selling commission of between 3% and 3.5%?
That's right. The whole point of getting onto the MLS is to have other
agents showing the property for you which then brings back my original
question.
Suppose you have a property valued at $100K. Is it easier to have an agent
to sell it for $100K and you pocket $93K or is it easier for you to just
list it at $93K and sell it yourself. I think for high end properties
($300K up) an extra $20K probably wouldn't mean much. But for low end
properties at $100K or less, the $7K tag on realtor's fee is pretty
substantial.
Goldfinger
"Peter D" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
> In the same market and priced right, and advertised right, anyone can
> sell a home.
>
> I listed a home for $119,900 and sold it six weeks later for $116,800. I
> had been offered $116,900 24 hours after advertising it. Seems to me the
> price was wrong to start with. Still, listed and sold at $119,900
> through a Realtor wouldn't have netted me what I got, not close to it.
Peter,
Where else did you advertise you house beside the Herald and the Sun?
Peter D
postcard hi-lites on store boards, and a nice Web page on the Net with a
simple walk-through video and lots of pics -- especially the garden
area, which contained almost 2,000 flowering bulbs. Quite a display, and
made for great pictures.
--
Peter D
Goldfinger wrote in message ...
Peter D
<_eON7.24671$Ve1.2...@news.easynews.com>...
>Suppose you have a property valued at $100K. Is it easier to have an
agent
>to sell it for $100K and you pocket $93K or is it easier for you to
just
>list it at $93K and sell it yourself.
But why not sell it for $98K and keep the difference? After all, if it's
priced right and the Realtor has done the job right, the $100K is the
value of the house. $98K is a bargain for the buyer. If the true value
of the house is $93K then the $100K sticker is going to keep it around
for a long time or the Realtor is going to have to con the people buying
it.
--
Peter D
John Fleming
> Goldfinger wrote in message
> <_eON7.24671$Ve1.2...@news.easynews.com>...
>
> >Suppose you have a property valued at $100K. Is it easier to have an
> agent
> >to sell it for $100K and you pocket $93K or is it easier for you to
> just
> >list it at $93K and sell it yourself.
>
> But why not sell it for $98K and keep the difference?
Put yourself in the shoes of your potential buyer.
Your buyer is thinking that your primary reason for going FSBO is to *save*
the commission.
Now, why should your potential buyer allow you to be so greedy as to keep
the *entire* commission.
So, your buyer thinks "$98k less seven percent = ~91k".
So, at best (from the seller's point of view), your buyer is going to aim
for a mid-point, say $94k. At worst, your buyer is going to aim at the low
end--$91k.
So, in a sense, you have a choice. You can negotiate a commission with a
Realtor, or you can "negotiate" a commission with the buyer.
Now, if you list as a FSBO at $94, the buyer is still going to go through
the same mental arithmetic. "Let's see, $94k less 7% . . .."
Peter D
>"Peter D" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
>news:pRON7.22706$pP5.3...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
>> Goldfinger wrote in message
>> <_eON7.24671$Ve1.2...@news.easynews.com>...
>>
>> >Suppose you have a property valued at $100K. Is it easier to have
an
>> agent
>> >to sell it for $100K and you pocket $93K or is it easier for you to
>> just
>> >list it at $93K and sell it yourself.
>>
>> But why not sell it for $98K and keep the difference?
>
>Put yourself in the shoes of your potential buyer.
Having bought several houses, that's easy to do.
<thinks> "Hmm. Commissions never entered into the discussion."
>Your buyer is thinking that your primary reason for going FSBO is to
*save*
>the commission.
Nope. I never cared less, and I couldn't care less what either part
thinks. Money talks, thinking walks. :-)
>Now, why should your potential buyer allow you to be so greedy as to
keep
>the *entire* commission.
"Greedy"? If I have an item worth "X" dollars, and you are willing to
pay "X" dollars for it, what's "greed" got to do with it? If I have lots
of buyers, I don't care whether one of them thinks I'm being "greedy".
Make me an offer you can live with. If I can live with it, we have a
deal.
>So, your buyer thinks "$98k less seven percent = ~91k".
>
>So, at best (from the seller's point of view), your buyer is going to
aim
>for a mid-point, say $94k. At worst, your buyer is going to aim at the
low
>end--$91k.
>
>So, in a sense, you have a choice. You can negotiate a commission with
a
>Realtor, or you can "negotiate" a commission with the buyer.
Nope. See above.
>Now, if you list as a FSBO at $94, the buyer is still going to go
through
>the same mental arithmetic. "Let's see, $94k less 7% . . .."
Nope. Depends on the market and how long I'm willing to wait. I got an
offer for close to what I wanted, but the offer came with tons of
stipulations and the buyer was clearly clueless as to how to buy a
house, so I refused it. When I sold O got close to what I wanted, the
buyer paid close to what they wanted, and we were all happy. And never a
mention of negotiating on commissions. Never entered into it.
--
Peter D
som...@somewhere.com
John, your "read" on this is 100%.
DA KING
INSANE!!!
Michael Yardley
<<<<<< Realtors www sites are just selling tools. Like all www sites
they are over rated. I doubt they ever sell anything. List on MLS at
the standard listing commission gets you the best price. The key is
listing a little bit below what the competition is listed at, and
being prepared to make frequent price changes to reflect the current
price. If I have a qualified buyer that i am working with I will show
a house that is easy to show. Best is to use a lock box. You can run
into problems with them, but they work well most of the time. The
reason that people will buy through a realtor is that they know they
carry malpracitise insurance. If anything goes wrong down the road
they can sue on the realtors insurance fund. With a do it yourself+er
who will be long gone with the money they cannot sue anybody if they
have left town. The realtor is still there. The biggest problems with
MLS vendors, sellers is greed. List at the stand commission rates of
7% first 100,000 and 2.5% on the balance and you will sell your home.
If I am a realtor I am not going to show a house that is listed at a
cut rate commission . I will sell the one next door and tell the buyer
that yours has wood rot. Use a realtor that works your area. One that
you see has lots of sold signs around. Work with a good company like
Remax. House sells can be a pain in the butt. I would call them and
tell them to reduce the price as it was not getting the calls on MLS
as it was to high priced. They said no. So many times I cancelled the
listing as I did not need their BS. Good realtors can give you a
wealth of information. Greedy sellers usually get shafted. If you
think realtor are bad that is your problem, go sell it in the
newspapers yourself.Tyhe only people who will call are moving
companies. Most buyers will not deal with FSBO's as they are a pain in
the neck to listen to.
If you think selling houses is easy go try it. Most people go into the
business and sell nothing and end up with a big pile of debt. Good
luck. >>>>>>>>>>
MY
us...@127.0.0.1
sending people to a pay-per-view site is not infromative.
tnr
yar...@cotse.com says...
> "Goldfinger" <goldfin...@home.com> wrote in message news:<IE8N7.18242$z7.1...@news.easynews.com>...
> > "Peter D" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
> > news:s0DL7.1391$pP5.1...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
> If I am a realtor I am not going to show a house that is listed at a
> cut rate commission . I will sell the one next door and tell the buyer
> that yours has wood rot. Use a realtor that works your area. One that
> wealth of information. Greedy sellers usually get shafted. If you
> think realtor are bad that is your problem, go sell it in the
Well I think you've amply demonstrated that neither ethics or honesty is
a requirement for a realtor.
us...@127.0.0.1
Yeah, no kidding....what is the realtors name, as I'm sure that the
real estate board would be very interested in pursuing this further.
tnr
says...
It said Michael Yardley in the header.
rEvInMiSTaHbLaCk
tnr <t...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.16731ea2184ce6a79899cd@news...
> Well I think you've amply demonstrated that neither ethics or honesty is
> a requirement for a realtor.
NO SHIT!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Mr. Frederick
news:3c0a89ca....@news.telusplanet.net...
If you were on a real estate board would you take seriously any complaint
from a group of people who have spent time discussing how evil and greedy
realtors are? Would you take seriously any complaint from a group of people
discussing how to bypass realtors, or try to cut their commissions? Would
you bother to take seriously the statement "If I am a realtor"? Or would
you have better things to do with your life?
tnr
croo...@mbno.sympaticospam.ca says...
They might take seriously the realtor's own words wherein he says he
will steer a client away from a house which may be perfect for them just
to increase his commission and that he will do that by lying to them. Do
ya think?
Mr. Frederick
If he is a realtor! Do you know? I don't! I highly doubt it.
tnr
croo...@mbno.sympaticospam.ca says...
Perhaps he isn't, in which there is no problem. Easy enough to check
though. So what?
Peter D
<15081053.01120...@posting.google.com>...
>If I am a realtor I am not going to show a house that is listed at a
>cut rate commission . I will sell the one next door and tell the buyer
>that yours has wood rot.
Then you'd be using deceptive practices in order to make your sale. And
if you did, and it was my house, and I found out, I'd sue your ass to
publicly disgrace you as a fraud and a liar. If you aren't good enough
to sell honestly, then you should get out and make room for someone who
is good enough.
>If you think selling houses is easy go try it. Most people go into the
>business and sell nothing and end up with a big pile of debt.
What a load of bs! Lots of people sell their own houses every day. This
isn't Rocket Science, you know. I mean look at the kind of idiots and
liars (that would be you) who do it for a living!
{yeah, that was mean and nasty, but he deserved it for being such an
asswipe}
Mr. Frederick
Then do it, and tell us.
tnr
Damn the senility must be getting to me again... I can't remember when I
became your research assistant.
Kregen
enough for average size adults and kids to get through in case of an emergency.
Even with the upper windows, there is not much of a drop compared to a two
story. The stairways are split evenly in two (upper level - lower level) which
is less of a problem if you take a spill compared to a two story (only if it's a
straight flight).
One quirk with bilevels is that you get a ledge around the exterior walls. The
good thing about this is that it can be used as a book shelf or as a place for
other items such as ornamentals. As with any basement, I'd recommend putting in
a subfloor to make it easy to live in when these cold winters hit!
"Goldfinger" <goldfin...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lrpjvtodhflipbi4d...@4ax.com...
> My mind was set on buying a two storey home but after my agent showed
> me few bi level homes he explained this to me and see if that made
> sense to you guys.
>
> He said he likes bi level homes more than two storey homes. For
> example, a 1300 sq ft Bi Level will sell for about the same as a 1800
> two storey home. With the basement developed, a 1300 sq ft Bi Level
> will have about 2500 sq usable space which is roughly the same as a
> 1800+700(basement) two storey home.
>
> He said the usable space is roughly the same between bi levels and two
> storeys but the bi levels occupy larger lots because of the larger
> base. So he said a comparable bi level is more valuable than a
> similar two storey.
>
> Does it make sense to you? What's you opinion on bi levels and two
> storeys? Thanks.
>
>
Michael Yardley
>
> > >> If I am a realtor I am not going to show a house that is listed at a
> > >> cut rate commission . I will sell the one next door and tell the buyer
> > >> that yours has wood rot. Use a realtor that works your area. One that
>
> > >> wealth of information. Greedy sellers usually get shafted. If you
> > >> think realtor are bad that is your problem, go sell it in the
> > >
> > >
> > >Well I think you've amply demonstrated that neither ethics or honesty is
> > >a requirement for a realtor.
<<<<<< My name is Michael Yardley, I am retired due to health reasons.
I was a member of the Vancouver Real Estate Board for many years.
During the seventies and eighties. If you think realtors have ethics
you are living in cockooland. The ones, I knew, most of the successful
one's lied all the time. You tell people what they need to hear to
close the sale. If your house has got bugs in it, and I tell the
buyer that,it is fair comment. I saw cokroches in your home when I
was trying to list it the other day off your FSBO advertisement. You
where going on about wanting a low commission rate. I told you that I
would only list it at the regular commission rates as nobody would
show it otherwise. That is a fact whether you like it or not. You
where going on about the Combines Commission and fixed commsion rats.
I tried to explain the operating costs of a real estate office, but
you where not interested. The fact is low rate commsion houses always
go broke. All you could keep saying was "I want a low commsion rate".
Just like a whining baby. MY >>>>>>>
> >
> > Yeah, no kidding....what is the realtors name, as I'm sure that the
> > real estate board would be very interested in pursuing this further.
<<<<<< My name is Michael Yardley, as I told you in an above response
Mr Anonymous Handle. You can direct your complaint to the Seretary of
the Real Estate Council or the Vancouver Real Eastat board. They will
require that you sign your ture name and address and you have to
notaries your complaint. If you do not do this they will not proceed
with your complaint. They will also need a copy of yout interim
agreemant and listing contract. If you do not provide these they will
not prceed. I, if I was still in the Buiness would get copies of
everything. As you had been such a pale in the ass when I was trying
to list your hhouse for sale. I would hire a nasty little Jewish
Lawyer and sue you for defamation and malicious prosectution oand
enything else we could think of. We would do it in Supreme Court, not
small claims Court becuase there we can get true legal costs against
you. Then we stick it on Equafax and fuck up your credit rating for
six years right accross Canada.
"very interested in pursuing this further". So I am. You are a cheap
scate FSBO whois a pain in the ass. You know who I am, so what is your
name Mr FSBO lets go at it anytime anyplace. In Court that is .
If you were on a real estate board would you take seriously any
complaint
from a group of people who have spent time discussing how evil and
greedy
realtors are? Would you take seriously any complaint from a group of
people
> discussing how to bypass realtors, or try to cut their commissions? Would
> you bother to take seriously the statement "If I am a realtor"?
<<<<< Was is better stated MY >>>>>>
Or would
> you have better things to do with your life? MY >>>>>>>>>
Michael Yardley
<<<<<< I can go back in the business any time I want. I was licensed
in Vancouver for many years. I still have many friends in the
business. Most are starving, some making good money. Most of the
Chinese Realtors have two jobs. MY >>>>>
Michael Yardley
> "Peter D" <p...@se.ask> wrote in message
> news:s0DL7.1391$pP5.1...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
> > In the same market and priced right, and advertised right, anyone can
> > sell a home.
<<<<< Buyers do not want to deal with FSBO's. They have no malpractise
insurance. When the sale is complete they are long gone. The Realtor
is still around. Big reason to deal with a realtor MY >>>>>
<<<<< You do not sell house's out of the paper, rarely. Most houses
are sold as I have a buyer looking, off the sign and mostly of MLS.
MLS is where you should be listing your house, but well priced, with a
local realtor. 50% of buyers are out of town. They look at the MLS
listings with the realtor they are working with. If you talk the the
President of your local Real Estate Board they will confirm that most
houses are sold on MLS. Statistic are reguarlly posted in newpapers.
MY >>>>>>
Michael Yardley
>
> Perhaps he isn't, in which there is no problem. Easy enough to check
> though. So what?
<<<< Run my name though go-ogle. That is what my younger brother in
the UK did. He is a Network Engineer for one of the major breweries.
Put in their whole ordering system. You know how to use go-ogle? Mr
FSBO!!!! MY >>>>>
Michael Yardley
<<<< Well at least I told you the way it works. The ones with ethics
starve. The honest ones make no $$$$$$$$$$$. The bad ones like me make
$$$$$$$$$$ and get our licenses cancelled. I got it back twice. After
lengthy battles. Please do not scream when you post. MY >>>>>>>
Michael Yardley
> Michael Yardley wrote in message
> <15081053.01120...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >If I am a realtor I am not going to show a house that is listed at a
> >cut rate commission . I will sell the one next door and tell the buyer
> >that yours has wood rot.
>
> Then you'd be using deceptive practices in order to make your sale. And
> if you did, and it was my house, and I found out, I'd sue your ass to
> publicly disgrace you as a fraud and a liar. If you aren't good enough
> to sell honestly, then you should get out and make room for someone who
> is good enough.
<<<<< You are living in some little cuckoo dream Mr Vendor. The
biggest liars are the buyers. Buyers are lairs and vendors even more
so. They would never tell you about the bad insulation. You had to
check it yourself. They would never tell you about defects to the
house or condomium. If you think selling honestly makes you money you
are an idiot. The best salespeople are the biggest liars. Canada is
dishonest, from the top to the bottom. The only honest ones are all in
Churches and Alcoholics Anonymous. They all say they are honest and
are the biggest criminals . Start living in the real world Mt Honest.
Business all business's, and that includes real estate, are
dishonest.
If you aren't good enough
> to sell honestly, then you should get out and make room for someone who
> is good enough.
The turn over rate was terrible. The same as insurance. MY >>>>>
Michael Yardley
> What a load of bs! Lots of people sell their own houses every day. This
> isn't Rocket Science, you know. I mean look at the kind of idiots and
> liars (that would be you) who do it for a living!
> {yeah, that was mean and nasty, but he deserved it for being such an
> asswipe}
<<<<< I become a Psycholgist dealing with all the fuckheads like you MY >>>>>>>>
Michael Yardley
> "John Fleming" <Dark....@kelpie.net> writes:
>
> >A bennefit of working through a Realtor is that the Realtor can do the
> >negotiating on your behalf. (Having a third party negotiate on your behalf
> >is something recommended in any book on negotiating I've ever read. For one
> >thing, a good third party negotiator is less likely to spill the beans on
> >anything that might weaken your negotiating position.
>
> The trouble is, real estate agents really work for themselves, not you.
>
> They get a commission, so they do have some incentive to sell for the
> highest price they can get. On the other hand, the thing that's most
> important to any business is profit per hour. If they can close a deal
> with one of the first few potential buyers, when they haven't yet spent
> a lot of time showing the place, that's going to be attractive to them.
> Sure, they might get 5% or 10% higher price for you (and themselves) by
> showing it to 2 or 3 times as many people - but that's not sensible for
> them.
>
> Dave
<<<<< Mr Martindale you hit the barrel on the head. I am this business
for ME to make money.MY >>>>>
@shaw.ca || taylorchuké’ž|I|"
In the real world... there are crooks selling and buying.
As Michael says..the turnover rate is really high in many/most sales jobs.
High churn rates like in Insurance...where they hire new people just so they
can then sell to the recruits families..then when that dries out, they're
out da' door.
Yes..successful sales people in it for the long term, don't lie... and
cherry pick their projects or clients.
Some businesses like computers are so cut throat..that there is little
customer loyalty left unless your store is one of the few around.
***
"Michael Yardley" <yar...@cotse.com> wrote in message
news:15081053.01120...@posting.google.com...
Michael Yardley
<<<<<< Above URL is a selling gimmick, we would look at the MLS stats
in the local area of Calgary that we want to move to, but in a local
office in Calgary when we arrive. How is Jerry Segal? MY >>>>>>>>>>
Michael Yardley
>
>x-no-archive:yes
>
>On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:49:01 -0600, Mr. Frederick offered the following:
>> > Perhaps he isn't, in which there is no problem. Easy enough to check
>> > though. So what?
>>
>> Then do it, and tell us.
>
>
>
>1. He uses a cotse e-mail address, so therefore he has some pseudo-
>technical leanings.
<<<<< Self taught. Cot SE is a good search engine of security related issues run
by Stephen K. Gielda in the USA. Another good one is www.networkice.com >>>>>>
>
>2. This thread is appearing in the following groups: calgary.general,
>edm.general, van.general, winnipeg.general, so he is likely a resident
>of one of those citys.
<<<<<< Burnaby actually. The original poster did the cross posting >>>>>
>
>3. Google Michael Yardley
>http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=Michael+yardley
>
>produces:
>
>http://www.commercialappealscommission.bc.ca/RealEstateAct/cac9208.htm
>
>It seems Michael Yardley is an rather unscrupulous former real estate
>agent - having lost his license for a number of disciplenary actions
>over the years:
<<<<<
I like the unscrupulous bit. That discribess all the ones that made any money. I
was not an agent, I would have probably run with all the trust money like the
Chinese Agent on Kingway did recently. I was always a sales person. I can get
the license back but their are to many Chinks and Hindus in the business they
all cut the commission rates and spoiled the business. Like they have other
business's in the Lower Mailland. Example the taxi business. Yes I am racist, we
have to many of them coming into the Lower Mainland. We need more white
immingants from Europe. >>>>>>
<<<<< All Commercial Appeals are on the Internet and many other cases's as well
as mine are shown. They always tare you with the bad things you did but seem to
forget the good. Many people made god money of me.>>>>>
>
>------- excerpt from this 1992 document ---
>
>"The Appellant is a 46 year old man who stated that his full-time
>vocation from l976 to the present has been real estate salesperson,
>notwithstanding periods of suspension that will be elaborated below. He
>described his time in the industry amounted to "ten plus years."
>
>The earliest evidence of disciplinary proceedings before the Panel
>related to the cancellation of the Appellant's license in September,
>l986 following a finding of misconduct pursuant to s. 20(l)(c) of the
>Act.
>
>The finding of misconduct arose from several separate incidents. The
>Council found the allegations made out and the Appellant took no issue
>with that finding. The Appellant told the Panel that his actions were
>"not the actions of a normal person" and that they were all alcohol
>related. He said that he is a member of Alcoholics Anonymous and that he
>has been sober for seven years.
>
>The finding of misconduct in l986 was based on the following:
>
>a) that the Appellant knowingly entered into transactions with certain
>persons when he knew or ought to have known (as the purchaser) that he
>would not be able to fulfil his financial obligations; and
>
>b) that the Appellant persuaded a tenant in a North Vancouver apartment
>to back-date a rent cheque when he knew or ought to have known a
>Receiver had been appointed to receive rent from the property; and
>
>c) the Appellant entered into a prepaid ten month lease with a tenant
>and failed to make payments on the mortgage, maintenance fees and taxes
>and allowed the mortgage to go into default to the detriment of the
>vendor
>
>d) the Appellant knowingly offered to purchase a property under the name
>of Michael John Howitt while licensed under the name of Michael Yardley
>and employed by United Realty and failed to notify the vender he was a
>real estate salesman and did not provide the proper disclosure as
>required by section 28 of the Act.
>
>-----------
>
>More reading here on the offenses this goober has made:
>
>http://www.commercialappealscommission.bc.ca/RealEstateAct/cac9316.htm
>
>
>Therefore - you are likely looking at a post from one of the slimiest
>(and probably former) realtors in the Van area...
<<<<<, My earning in the busines where above average Trevor.
Per my T4's >>>>>>>
>Trevor
<<<<< With my pseudo-technical leanings I managed to come up with your address
and personal inforamtion. But I guess you would get upset if I posted it Trevor.
>>>>>
jkiop7890
John Fleming
> <<<<< You do not sell house's out of the paper, rarely. Most houses
> are sold as I have a buyer looking, off the sign and mostly of MLS.
> MLS is where you should be listing your house, but well priced, with a
> local realtor.
There is a tremendous value to being listed on MLS--it gets you the exposure
to the most buyers.
The thing about a Realtor putting an ad in the paper and a sign on the lawn.
The purpose is *not* to sell your house. Ditto with open houses.
If you house sells as a reslut of an ad, sign or open house--fine for you,
the seller.
From a Realtor's point of view, the purpose of ads, signs and open houses is
to find potential buyers and sellers.
I call in on an ad in, say, Real Estate Weekly. The ad may be for your
house, but I am a potential buyer for any of the thousands of houses listed
on MLS.
Now, the advantage to me, as a buyer, to working with a Realtor is that I
don't have to contact every individual seller who puts an ad in the paper.
My Realtor can do that leg work for me (as well as weed out a lot of
inappropriate properties along the way).
A Realtor has access to stats on all the homes listed on the MLS *and* can
show me pretty much any of the listed properties (Obvious exceptions being
pending sales).
>50% of buyers are out of town. They look at the MLS
> listings with the realtor they are working with. If you talk the the
> President of your local Real Estate Board they will confirm that most
> houses are sold on MLS.
Not surprising. When I was flogging houses, most houses were listed on
MLS--and for the very simple reason that it lets the most Realtors with
potential buyers show the house.
The only advantage to a real estate company with making a residential home
an exclusive listing is they are very certain they have a some potential
buyers working with someone in the office. (I.e., I list your home, and I
have four or five buyers who are *all* looking for a home like yours.)
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
"Keeping in Touch With the
Young People of America."
Peter D
for Mr. Yardley to practice either. :-(
Michael Yardley wrote in message
<15081053.0112...@posting.google.com>...