[ridethebike]

>> Third party recruiters are leeches

Can confirm this and it was surprise for me when I discovered it. I assumed they would try to maximize $$ in my offer in order to maximize their profit. Yet most of them were trying to get offer accepted as quick as possible. Seems like more offers with less money in each is preferred over less offers with more money in each.

[robocat]

The same dynamic occurs with real estate agents. A successful agent optimises for quick sales, while giving the appearance of trying to get the best price. Very important to know when dealing with agents if either selling or buying a home.

[robocat]

To be more explicit: as a buyer, especially in a tight market, the seller’s agent will often do things or reveal information to the buyers benefit (against the interests of the seller they are supposed to represent).

There are “rules” to how the game is played, and how the information is revealed, and a lot of it seems hidden (in fact I have seen agents that don’t understand the perverse incentives!). A seller’s agent will usually need to make sure they have deniability, and they will prefer options where the vendor remains happy (so the vendor will use them again, and recommend the agent to other sellers).

I have only a very little experience, and none in the USA, but that was what I noticed in my own country.

It surprises me how little effort people put into understanding the game, given that playing it well can easily make the same difference as many years of income.

[retsibsi]

Some real estate agents will, if asked, agree to a more top-heavy commission -- e.g. instead of x% of the total sale price, y% of the amount over $z. (I don't know the exact details, but my dad did this when selling his flat.)

[thrav]

I think someone like Derek Sivers (maybe not actually him) talked about doing this. From what I remember, it was quite painful finding one who would agree to it, and was probably only possible because it was a stand out property.

This would likely be more difficult for an average person to pull off, but can be a great mutual win if you pull it off.

[MeinBlutIstBlau]

A quick tip for homebuyers/sellers to save on realtor fees. Contact the title company and they'll gladly tell you what you need to do to close the loan. Maybe not ASAP, but they are more vested in you doing the busy work and doing it right than they are the worthless realtors. Half the time realtors in my state wouldn't even sign the offer to purchase and include their info even though it's illegal and they can lose their license.

[lostcolony]

So given the buyer's agent fees come out of the sale price (which already reflects that commission), you're not really saving anything are you?

For the sellers, maybe, but I don't think I'd be at all comfortable selling a home without a (good) agent.

I'll 100% agree with you that most realtors are bad. The good ones are gold though.

[gentleman11]

Recruiters are like men on dating apps: spam as many people as possible without reading their profiles, treating people like objects

[lordofgibbons]

Who hurt you??

[brailsafe]

I've personally witnessed friends doing this as a man. A bit sad, and certainly not true of all men, but it's not false.

[ipaddr]

Interesting must be a strategy towards women selecting the top 10% only so men are not getting any matches. Getting matched before reading profiles saves tons time kind of makes sense. Then you can review and filter afterwards.

Why is that sad? Have you ever heard of speed dating? Similiar concept.

[brailsafe]

Well I've witnessed people not even looking much at the photos. Men do get matches, and I don't really agree with how factual or defined your initial statement is. I guess it's sad because of how arbitrary the selection is.

[ric2b]

The selection is arbitrary because they're not the ones doing the selection, women are.

There's a well known study from OkCupid about this, women are way more selective so men only have very few matches a week (and some of those don't even respond) unless they try a lot.