What do estate agents actually do?

Smodlet

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

I'm making a perfectly valid point..... are you an estate agent??

No. Wash your mouth out. :cool:

SmashedAvacado

When you are buying / selling something for £5m, and offer might look like £4.5m or £4.7m or indeed £5m. An agents fee of £100k or so is not significant. You might be alarmed to find that you'd likely pay £10k or more for legal fees. Many don't but plenty do.

diggingdude

Why is the 5 million part so important? In London and the south east that isn't particularly rare. Reality is EA saw them coming and they signed a contract. Nothing else to justify

Mr_Singleton

Ok, let me take a slightly different angle...

How many people would use an EA that charged a commission of 40% of 4he sale price? As I thought.... nobody.

Bear with me... People seem to think that 1% would have been a fair commission on the property which would have been £45,000. The current UK average wage is about £30,000. So 1.5 times an average wage.

In 1974 the average wage was about £6500. 1.5 times that is £9750. If the EA had charged that to sell the house in 1974 it would have been equal to 40% of the houses value. At £130,000 the seller would have had to give all the proceeds to the EA PLUS more to cover 2019's nearly 3% percent.

So, again my question is what extra are EA's doing to justify the huge uplift in there fees?

lees80

You must be really, really bored.

AdrianC

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

How many people would use an EA that charged a commission of 40% of 4he sale price? As I thought.... nobody.

Not many would be daft enough to sign up to 3%.

So, again my question is what extra are EA's doing to justify the huge uplift in there fees?

Why do they have to justify it?

If somebody doesn't want to pay the fees any business are charging, they can go to a competitor. If a particular market sector is overpriced, relative to costs, then there's a strong likelihood that a low-cost entrant will clean up.

csgohan4

OP stop blaming the EA, in fact I am impressed the EA managed to squeeze that much out of your relative.


If anyone is to blame, it's your relative for not comparing the market and realising 3% is a rip off

davidmcn

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

In 1974 the average wage was about £6500. 1.5 times that is £9750. If the EA had charged that to sell the house in 1974 it would have been equal to 40% of the houses value. At £130,000 the seller would have had to give all the proceeds to the EA PLUS more to cover 2019's nearly 3% percent.

By what multiples do the sale prices of the house in 1974 and 2019 compare with the average wages of the time, and how do your relatives justify it?

Thrugelmir

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

So, again my question is what extra are EA's doing to justify the huge uplift in there fees?

You've provided no detailed information. Anything said is pure speculation.

Though on a broader level. EA's only earn commission when a property sale is completed. Hence my earlier comment about operating costs.

Comms69

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Ok, let me take a slightly different angle...

How many people would use an EA that charged a commission of 40% of 4he sale price? As I thought.... nobody.

Bear with me... People seem to think that 1% would have been a fair commission on the property which would have been £45,000. The current UK average wage is about £30,000. So 1.5 times an average wage. - What are you on about now? Wages have nothing to do with this. You negotiate a rate!

In 1974 the average wage was about £6500. 1.5 times that is £9750. If the EA had charged that to sell the house in 1974 it would have been equal to 40% of the houses value. At £130,000 the seller would have had to give all the proceeds to the EA PLUS more to cover 2019's nearly 3% percent.

So, again my question is what extra are EA's doing to justify the huge uplift in there fees?

They sell your house. That's what they do. If you don't want to pay an agent, you don't have to. Just sell it yourself.