Broker for owners - benefits / advantages?

I find shared costs to be a fair and morally justifiable compromise.

However, (in urban areas with very high demand) the job is almost a self-runner, which is why I consider 6% to be too high. And with the "easy money" together with the hardly existing entry barrier, there are many bad apples that you inevitably encounter. Meanwhile, we have reached the point where recently a real estate agent justified to me that he had actually learned something "proper" before becoming an agent...

As I said, it’s simply more convenient for the seller. In the end, I only decided which party to sell to. With a broker, some buyers might be deterred, but also those who complain without reason just to push the price down as much as possible. I didn’t want to expose myself to that either. In the beginning, it even got to the point where my wife was stopped by a guy on her way home who wanted to view the house immediately. She then politely gave him the broker’s card, after which he never got back in touch.

And the rest is simply regulated by supply and demand. A few years ago, I probably would not have agreed to pay the broker as the buyer. With our new house, we simply had no choice.

Hello Joedreck,

I think it’s good that you’re satisfied. Because that is the main thing.

It may also be a proud price for that satisfaction. Because, assuming the house was sold for 500k. On top of that, the buyer also pays 25k broker fee (for example, at 5%) and then taxes on everything. Let’s say all together 30k, which the buyer naturally has to pay extra. You probably don’t care…

If you had sold without a broker and it is a sought-after location, you could ask for 20k more. Sure, you’d have to take 10 photos yourself and hold, for example, 20 viewings.

If that “work” is worth 20k to someone, then it’s perfectly fine to hire a broker. But then don’t complain with the next house purchase, for example, if the outdoor area is only done 3 years later because there’s no money.

You say it yourself… Everything is regulated by supply and demand. There are no great price debates with potential buyers then. Whoever offers the most in the desired time frame gets the place, and that’s that.

I think I already wrote it… A broker makes sense for me personally only when it’s a mediocre location or if you have multiple properties and can’t be on site often.

Everything else seems relatively shortsighted from my point of view… That money could have been invested more usefully. (For example, donations)

In metropolitan regions (30km around a city with 300,000-500,000 inhabitants), you don't need a real estate agent to sell a house. What I have strongly noticed as a potential buyer in the last 2 years, however, is that with corresponding good properties, haggling is pointless because tomorrow someone is willing to pay exactly the stated amount. The properties sell themselves at a reasonable price. Back to the topic: The few photos, texts, and viewings can also be done by yourself if you live in or near the area. What I would personally find difficult as a seller (purely hypothetically) would be the valuation of the property. Unfortunately, you can waste real money here if you set the price too low.

How does it look now from 1.10 to become a broker?

An additional Jodel diploma from the IHk?

The title of the topic is yes. The use of the real estate agent for owners. So, whoever is an owner is a seller. The agent realistically estimates the value, creates the exposé, screens the interested parties, conducts the viewings, accompanies me to the notary. So, all useful things for me that the buyer has to pay for. Given the current market situation. So why should I sell without an agent, let people nag me that everything is too expensive, that the house has renovation backlog here and there, why should I let dozens of guys tromp through my bedroom, two thirds of whom are financially weak anyway, struggle with the thing and think, well, probably have to give up 50 thousand... why! Whether with or without, a decent property always sells at the moment, then better with one. Karsten

The title of the topic is: Benefit of the broker for owners. So, whoever is the owner is the seller. The broker realistically estimates the value, creates the exposé, checks the interested parties, conducts the viewings, accompanies me to the notary. So, all useful things for me, which the buyer has to pay for....

Hello Karsten,

well, that is exactly my approach. First of all, the buyer pays. However, in my opinion, that is a lost profit for the seller. The amount that the broker pockets could have been kept by oneself.

And nowadays, not being able to realistically assess one’s own property borders on ignorance. 30 years ago, I would have agreed with you. Nowadays, when you can access many statistics, data, and information online, that is no longer the case.