Estate Agency Fees - What are they for?

googler

confused31 wrote: »

I dont think anyone should be on the minimum wage and yes estate agents do deserve to be paid a reasonable wage, but they need to get in the real world with real wages, how a estate agent can justify 2 percent of a house sale for doing a valuation, taking a few photos, description advertising and answering the phone a few times is completely wrong.

Again, you seem to be confusing 'wages' with 'business income'.

Let's try it another way; if, by any small chance, you were to hire a local EA, and pay him/her an hourly rate, so that the EA would bill you by the hour for every activity they did related to your property, and itemised every phone call charge, and every petrol receipt, etc, etc, would you be prepared to pay them on that basis even if the sale didn't complete?

googler

zappahey wrote: »

They are taking the risk that, if the house does not sell, they have paid out in time, money and effort and got nothing in return.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the fees from successful sales also cover the expenses incurred in support of contracts where the house doesn't sell.

confused31, take note.

Some of your 2% goes to cover the expenses on the 18% of sales that don't complete (fairly recent NAEA figure, as I recall), and on the work done on valuations that don't turn into listings.

Out of the £4000 that you hypothetically paid the EA, some £720 or so got used up on other sales that didn't complete; in theory, at least.

If the EA gets one out of five valuations, the expense of the other four have to paid for from somewhere.

confused31_2

I might be the minority if thats what you lot think miss, googler and chimpmug, you are all estate agents or ex estate agents so you cant really argue, im looking form a neutrals point of view who has nothing to really gain by saying i dont think estate agents are worth the money people have to pay them.

However i have had dealings with 4 local estate agents by me and not one of them was any good, but thats my opinion and i can have that, ibase my feelings on experiance.

Maybe if i was aa estate agent i would come on here and say we do deserve and earn the money the fees dictate, but im sorry i personally dont think you do.

Answer this question, have the costs of running a estate agent doubled in the last 10 years?

if yes i agree estate agents wages are inline with what they were earning 10 years ago, however i dont think costs have doubled to run a estate agency from 10 years ago.

So why should a estate agent earn double? when the work they do is the same as 10 years ago, all they are doing is taking a bigger cut of someones hard earned equity, due to house prizes rising.

anyway if estate agents charged a reasonable fee, then maybe they might get more work.

MissMotivation

confused31 wrote: »

I might be the minority if thats what you lot think miss, googler and chimpmug, you are all estate agents or ex estate agents so you cant really argue, im looking form a neutrals point of view who has nothing to really gain by saying i dont think estate agents are worth the money people have to pay them.

However i have had dealings with 4 local estate agents by me and not one of them was any good, but thats my opinion and i can have that, ibase my feelings on experiance.

Maybe if i was aa estate agent i would come on here and say we do deserve and earn the money the fees dictate, but im sorry i personally dont think you do.

Answer this question, have the costs of running a estate agent doubled in the last 10 years?

if yes i agree estate agents wages are inline with what they were earning 10 years ago, however i dont think costs have doubled to run a estate agency from 10 years ago.

So why should a estate agent earn double? when the work they do is the same as 10 years ago, all they are doing is taking a bigger cut of someones hard earned equity, due to house prizes rising.

anyway if estate agents charged a reasonable fee, then maybe they might get more work.

I can argue (debate) because that what makes a balanced debate.

Of course, you can argue with yourself (a person that only has little knowledge of what EA's do) but that would make it very one-sided.....surely?

googler

confused31 wrote: »

I might be the minority if thats what you lot think miss, googler and chimpmug, you are all estate agents or ex estate agents so you cant really argue, im looking form a neutrals point of view who has nothing to really gain by saying i dont think estate agents are worth the money people have to pay them.

As far as this debate is concerned we're all merely anonymous contributors to this forum - including you, and throwing in comments like "you are all estate agents or ex estate agents so you cant really argue" does nothing to convince anyone of your point of view.

TBH, you don't come across as very 'neutral', and nobody has anything to gain from the results of this debate, whether EA, non-EA or innocent bystander caught in the crossfire.

However, again, you're not responding to the points put to you, merely restating your earlier comments. Is there any response to my query to you at 4.01pm re hourly rates for their work, and whether you think that's a reasonable basis for payment?

If you were an EA, what would you charge, and how would you charge it?

confused31_2

googler wrote: »

As far as this debate is concerned we're all merely anonymous contributors to this forum - including you, and throwing in comments like "you are all estate agents or ex estate agents so you cant really argue" does nothing to convince anyone of your point of view.

TBH, you don't come across as very 'neutral', and nobody has anything to gain from the results of this debate, whether EA, non-EA or innocent bystander caught in the crossfire.

However, again, you're not responding to the points put to you, merely restating your earlier comments. Is there any response to my query to you at 4.01pm re hourly rates for their work, and whether you think that's a reasonable basis for payment?

If you were an EA, what would you charge, and how would you charge it?

If estate agents were paid hourly for how much time they spend on each property to sell it they would pick up less than 40 hours to sell each house.

And that would include the valuation and the photos and description.

Like i said no one responds to my question so why should i respond to yours, if i was a estate agent i wouldnt be greedy and i would obviously take the costs for running the company and take a reasonable wage for myself.

Its like today i heard a estate agent had charged someone 350 pound for a hip and this was without vat, now the estate agent in question probably sub contracted the hip out to a energy asscessor and got the hip for 180 pound, now how can they justify charging someone more than double with Vat to what they have had to pay the asscessor.

Do you think thats fair, and do you think the estate agent can justify making that much money just from arranging a HIP??

This is just one thing that i think is wrong and no matter what you say i will not change my opinion of estate agents.

confused31_2

zappahey wrote: »

They are taking the risk that, if the house does not sell, they have paid out in time, money and effort and got nothing in return.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the fees from successful sales also cover the expenses incurred in support of contracts where the house doesn't sell.

You say that but if they can tie people in by charging them 350 pound for a hip payable if they dont sell within 9 months, Sellers are rather stuck with them.

Plus if they charge 350 plus vat for ahip which they can arrange for about half of that they are quids in straight away, for just arranging the hip.

googler

"If estate agents were paid hourly for how much time they spend on each property to sell it they would pick up less than 40 hours to sell each house.

And that would include the valuation and the photos and description."

Again, you're referring to the work involved in a successful sale, but neglecting the other valuations that don't lead to sales, and those that are placed on the market, but don't complete.

Would you pay them hourly for the work they might do for you, regardless of whether or not a sale is achieved?



(At this point, although the OP seems to have disappeared, I think apologies are in order for hijacking the thread, although I think we're still reasonably on-topic. Feel free to disagree, anyone.)

googler

I think the key phrase in the HIP criticism is "probably sub contracted " ...

No comment on whether it's fair or not, since we don't have enough facts.

confused31_2

youve gone off the subject it was estate agent fees, whether its a hip or a sale they still charge too much for whaterver they do, basically when they come round your house they should wear a balaclava

Id love to see a undercover programme on a estate agents everyone would see for themselves then.

I had a mate who used to be a estate agent a few years back when it was busy, and he said it was quite common for estate agents to get backhanders aswell for looking after investor clients.

I suppose that doesnt happen either does it??

take a look here, this is why i dont think estate agents justify there fees, even thought you say they are not all the same.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4826444.stm