DCCLC

Thanks for all of the help. I am talking to an agent this week who always has fabulous photos of his listings, so I'll see whether he uses a pro or is just a really good photographer himself. - Mon Jul 23 2007, 07:26

Thanks for all the advice. It is really helpful. The comps I have actually show if there was money back to the seller. Of the 36 comp houses the realtor gave me, only 4 had seller subsidiesonly. 4 of the 36 took longer than a month to sell, with the longest taking 63 days. 23 of the 36 sold in less than 2 weeks. So it looks like the market is good, and we are doing all the things Keith suggested, except having the pictures taken by a pro, so I think we'll price it on the low side, cross our fingers, and hope for the best!

P.S. I have a question about the professional pictures, but I'll start a new question for that. - Wed Jul 18 2007, 07:49

In response to Dawn:

All of the comps the realtor gave me were homes that sold within 4 blocks of my house in the last 9 months. The entire neighborhood is made up of row homes, all built in the 1930s. They are all approximately the same size with the same or very similar floorplans. It's about as apples to apples as you can get. The only variations are the degree to which they have been updated. Those that haven't been updated, but that are in good shape generally sell around $690-700k. There have been 3 in the last year that were completely gutted and re-built inside. They all sold at between $875-925k. The rest, those that are updated but not completely re-done, have sold from everywhere between $700-825k.

In the last month, two houses on the same block were put up for sale within 2 weeks of each other. We toured them both. One was priced at $775,000 and the other at $699,000. The one for $775k was slightly more attractive inside but not much and, unlike the one for $699k, didn't even have CAC. It was under contract within 2 weeks and sold for full price. The one for $699k was under contract within 6 days. It hasn't settled, so I don't know yet what the price ended up being, but I suspect there were multiple offers.

I have no idea why there is such a wide range of prices for houses that are very, very similar. That's one reason why I really don't know what the right price is for our house. It's not for lack of research. - Tue Jul 17 2007, 15:49

In response to Jeannette:

By "standard," I did not mean "required." 3% is what all the realtors with the brick and mortar realty companies charge in my area. I have never had a realtor say 3% is "standard" throughout the industry, but every one I have heard of uses 3% as her standard commission. And to be clear, there is a pending case by the U.S. Department of Justice against the National Association of Realtors for federal antitrust violations, so it certainly isn't that far-fetched.

I don't know if you've read the book, Freakanomics, but the authors cite studies by reputable statisticians that refute the conventional wisdom that sellers make more money using realtors. The reason is that it is in the realtor's best interest to make the sale than it is to hold out for the extra $300 (again, generally speaking), he would make by selling the house for $10,000 more.

I am honestly curious what you mean when you say that a realtor "can give you exposure in the right places." What more does the realtor offer in terms of exposure than an MLS listing, a yard sign, and an open house, all of which a seller can get on her own? I am not being a smart aleck. I'd really like to know.

Again, there are times, probably more often than not, when sellers would be happier using a realtor. Many people just don't want to fool with holding their own open house or writing up their own listing. But when you say, "it's really not all about money - time is what you are playing with," you are assuming that is true for everyone. To some people, however, it is not worth thousands of dollars in commissions to save themselves some legwork.

I hope it's clear that I am not saying that realtors do not offer a valuable service. I just get frustrated when I hear realtors trying to make sellers think that they would be fools to try to sell their homes themselves. It's a matter of trade-offs. - Fri Jul 13 2007, 09:27

Coincidental that six realtors weigh in against listing on your own? I think not. It is just not true that the only people searching MLS are real estate agents selecting properties to show to clients. Only the most unsophisticated buyers would rely solely on agents' picks. I bought my last house with an agent and still searched MLS every day on my own.

I don't even know that it's true that homes listed by realtors sell for more, but even if it is, the real question is whether the buyer gets a bigger profit after paying the broker's commission. For example, say you sell your house for $500,000. The standard 3% commission to the seller's agent is $15,000. Would an agent have been able to find a buyer willing to pay $15,000 more? Maybe, but probably not.

I agree that selling by yourself is more work, but I think there are situations when it makes a lot of sense. If you're in a hot market where homes tend to sell quickly, is it really worth paying a realtor's commission when the house itself is likely to attract a buyer? In terms of pricing the house, in most cities you can find what other houses in your neighborhood sold for by searching public records on the Internet. You don't always have to be home to show the house if you invest $40 in the same lockboxes that the realtors use, which you can buy on the Internet.

I would suggest that if you sell on your own that you hire a settlement attorney to take care of paperwork, but most people, even those with realtors, end up doing that anyway. - Fri Jul 13 2007, 08:26