[alistairSH]

Totally agree on the inspection. They're next to useless - a friend bought a home a few years ago, super-weird water heater/HVAC system (co-mingled, WTF), never mentioned by the inspector. When it broke a year later, it was a VERY expensive fix, and I think they might have recovered a few hundred $$ from the inspector (on a many thousands repair).

An agent is only getting 5-6% of the home value (assuming no split with a second agent). And a big chunk of that goes to the brokerage.

[Solvency]

If their inspector sucks that's on your friend.

We searched and vetted and found our own inspector. On Yelp of all places, one of the least trustworthy websites. It took us less than a day to find someone good.

And he found absolutely every single imaginable problem even down to the most hysterically unimportant detail. Like the tension on one of the kitchen/garage door hinges being slightly higher than the bottom door hinge. This was on a list of over 100 other things.

The point is, inspectors are jobs like anyone else. Some are good, some bad.

[alistairSH]

The problem isn't whether they find a problem. Even the best inspector will miss things occasionally. The problem is they have zero legal liability for that miss. The buyer is making the biggest purchase of their life on a report that cost ~$1000 and has no legal backing (beyond maybe recovering the ~$1000 inspection fee).

And then you have home insurance which isn't a whole lot better. They might fix the problem or they might manage to declare is pre-existing and deny coverage, but even if they do fix it, it'll be the lowest bidder installing the cheapest parts possible.

[PawgerZ]

When dealing with Home/Property insurance, always talk to a reputable public adjuster or general contractor. I worked at a general contractor construction company in a state where contractors can also act as public adjusters. We routinely caught insurance adjusters overlooking damage, lying, or straight up committing fraud.

The laws for insurance are very complex, and all of the material standards are locked behind paywalls. For an average person (me before I worked there) insurance is basically a black box; you can't argue against any of their points because they hide the criteria.

>but even if they do fix it, it'll be the lowest bidder installing the cheapest parts possible.

This is true, but illegal. You are owed for "Like Kind And Quality" according to the law. This means that the insurance company can't downgrade your materials, and they have to repair the property to AT LEAST pre-storm conditions. Additionally, it is your legal right to choose a construction crew or contractor of your choice, and the insurance company can't veto your decision. After the work is complete, make sure that you, the construction company, and the insurance company have copies of the specifications of your materials and what work was done. This way it will be much harder for insurance to fuck you over on your next claim.

Most contractors in my area are genuinely trying to help the clients. There are some contractors who take advantage of the innocent and gullible population, though. I hate them just as much as insurance companies.

[alistairSH]

Sorry, I was thinking of home warranties. You're exactly right on home insurance.

Two very different products, the former being a borderline scam much of the time, the latter being a requirement for financing (and common sense).

Current example for me... house is 50+ year old, with copper pipe for water supply. We're starting to get pin-hole leaks on some pipes. AFAIK, insurance considers this a maintenance item. They'd probably fix a major burst and the damage it causes (after the fact) but have no interest in even subsidizing preventative work to avoid the costly repair.

[sokoloff]

They consider it a maintenance item, because it is a maintenance item. Things in your house wearing out are not a homeowners insurance claim (at least not in the US).

[anotherman554]

"And he found absolutely every single imaginable problem even down to the most hysterically unimportant detail."

The fact an inspection document is impressive to read doesn't mean it is accurate. If he blew you away with his ability to name 100 minor things, but missed a structural issue, you'd be screwed, and would have no way to know this until the structure starting cracking.

[poulsbohemian]

>And a big chunk of that goes to the brokerage.

Thank you for this - the public should redirect a lot of their anger away from the agents and toward their brokerages. Likewise - please don’t use Zillow, Redfin, etc to contact an agent. Call the agent directly, as these online sites take a big pile of money out of the agents pocket as well.

I want to believe changes are coming in real estate, as the long standing brokerage model exploits agents and confuses the public.

[ffgjgf1]

5-6% of the purchase price still seems like a huge amount. Of course I don’t really know how many houses decent agents tend to sell per year.

[alistairSH]

It's highly variable.

Sample of 1, but my agent was frequently closing several homes/week during peak season (Spring, early Summer). At the time (2017), typical listing would be $500-$1 million (Fairfax County, VA).

So I'd guess 20-30/year for her.

Broker keeps 30-50% of the commission.

So, a good agent in NoVA is probably making $250-$500k/year (but has to pay their own payroll taxes and stuff out of that, IIRC).