[amscanne]

My archetype of a good sales person is the successful realtor. Realtors tend to “eat what they can kill”, so you can see the skills power law clearly. They are selling themselves more than houses, but there’s a lot to learn from that.

Some people love their realtors, although they do very little for their outlandish commissions. They do however, guide you through the process and give you transactional advice. Like any sales person, they generally have an interest in the transaction closing but they are only trusted if they come off as acting in your interest. That trust can ultimately help the transaction close — this is the line that I think good sales people walk.

[otabdeveloper4]

> although they do very little for their outlandish commissions

Realtors exist because buyers and sellers usually don't trust each other enough to talk directly.

It's stupid and inefficient, but here we are.

[davidcalloway]

I think you value their work too little. I worked as a realtor for a time and admittedly not a good one.

A good realtor has knowledge of current values in the local market, issues to look for throughout the transaction, which services will be needed and who can be trusted to provide those services.

There is often an element of buffering communication between buyer and seller, but it's not just a trust problem. Due to their different interests and perspectives, they will tend to communicate in ways that could offend the other party inadvertantly. A good realtor is skilled in smoothing this over and being more objective.

As an aside, the term realtor is trademarked and is something on top of real estate agent, but for the American public the realtor association has been so successful that almost every agent joins.

At the time I did this work, the requirements for licensing were indeed too lax in my state and therefore a commensurate number of lower quality agents. Which of course feeds the impression that agents are useless, because it was more true.

My understanding is that licensing the has since tightened.

None of that detracts from the fact that a good agent does quite a bit of work to build up knowledge, and to assist through a huge transaction that most people will seldom make and therefore more likely mess up.

Unfortunately this work is also often spent doing things that never lead to a transaction, such as multiple showings to buyers prior to finding a fit, or preparing listings that ultimately fail to sell for whatever reason. These costs need to be accounted for somehow, so we end up thinking only of the services rendered in our dealings.

I realize I have even more to say but I gotta stop sometime...

[astura]

>A good realtor has knowledge of current values in the local market, issues to look for throughout the transaction, which services will be needed and who can be trusted to provide those services.

Even if a "good" Realtor actually knows these things (and they don't, even though most think they do), you can't trust anything they say because they have misaligned incentives from you. So what service am I paying for, again?

And if only .001% of Realtors are "good", what does it even matter? You're not likely to be able to find a "good" one anyway. And if I do how do I verify they are "good?" You can't. And you straight up can't change your mind about who you are working with midway through the process, you sign a contract.

If I want home buying/selling services I should be able to pay a fixed fee (either per service or per hour) and get those services on the open market (and pay for them even if I don't close). Them demanding 6% of the value of my house is straight criminal. As is, the buyers agent works for the seller, because that's who is paying them.

>My understanding is that licensing the has since tightened

You're wrong. Even if they have tightened, any dingus can still get a real estate license.

Real estate agents are the house version of used car salesman.

[bluGill]

Incentives should be aligned because you will use that agent again if they do a good job for you. Not all realize this, but repeat moves (every 5-10 years) and referrals are how good agents make their money and both mean that they need to be trustworthy.

[arwineap]

> And you straight up can't change your mind about who you are working with midway through the process, you sign a contract.

You don't have to, those contracts are optional. They will threaten to not represent you, but if you are a well qualified buyer, this is something you can force without much risk.

The more well qualified buyers refuse, the more normalized working for clients without contracts will be

[abduhl]

>> These costs need to be accounted for somehow.

Why?

Realtors have for years committed antitrust violations to the detriment of home buyers and sellers and helped push home values up for no reason because they act in their own interest instead of their client’s. A realtor’s ultimate goal is to close the deal at any price, not get you a good deal. They are beholden to the sell side. They were a key reason for the housing crash of 2008. They offer very little value in 2025, and the value they do offer is sourced from their monopoly practices. They are strictly rent seekers (no pun intended).

[Al-Khwarizmi]

I think they provide a quite useful service.

As a seller, they can handle all the visits for you - no need to take calls from potential buyers, arrange times with them to show them the house, etc. This becomes almost indispensable if you live far away from the house you're selling.

As a buyer, they also provide convenience - sometimes I've seen 3 or 4 different apartments in two hours, which would almost certainly be impossible if I needed to contact and arrange time slots with 4 different sellers. They also filter properties with unrealistic prices - I have seen many owners who have massive bias, having grown in the house, etc., and will charge like 100K over reasonable prices. A good realtor would probably not even show you that home or warn you beforehand so you don't waste your time.

In my country, they also help with the bureaucracy associated with actually performing the purchase, which is far from trivial - although this can vary per country, I guess.

[bingaweek]

They exist because they've embedded themselves in the process and are hard to get rid of. If you want to buy a specific house it's already set up for you to find a realtor and the homeowner has already agreed to pay them a fat stack of cash. I needed a realtor to send an email, he dragged his feet then went on vacation, and I ended up overpaying to beat offers that showed up later. Rent seekers.

[mrweasel]

> Some people love their realtors

I'm sort of concerned that some people have "their realtor". I've sold a few houses, realtors are companies I contract to sell my house and they can be fired.

[amscanne]

Yeah, but it’s “your realtor” through that transaction, unless they are fired. Regardless, most successful realtors have repeat clients, for buying and selling (even if it’s years between transactions).