Last night I finally had the chance to watch last weekend’s World Cup qualifier between the United States and Barbados – a 1-0 victory for the Americans after winning 8-0 in Carson, California the week before.
Barbados’ national side combines a couple of professional players with some semi-pros and several amateurs who took time off from their day jobs as construction workers, electricians and such to represent their country on consecutive weekends. As the announcers said during the match, when watching practice it was easy to differentiate between the professional players and the amateurs even without checking a roster. The level of expertise displayed by the professionals was apparent.
I was reminded of that statement when reading through Trulia Voices this morning:
How do I best buy in Phoenix without using a buyer agent. I have access to the mls & am a veteran home buyer.
Using an agent isn’t necessary. Simply find the property you want, go to an office supply store that carries do-it-yourself paperwork and go for it. Granted, the paperwork isn’t based in Arizona law and doesn’t carry a fraction of the protections of the AAR Purchase Contract, but if you’re committed to doing it yourself, it’s pretty straight forward.
Everything will be fine … unless it’s not, in which case it can go very, very badly. Buying a home in Phoenix isn’t much different than buying a home elsewhere, aside from the fact that Arizona law governs the transaction. If you’ve done it before, you can do it again.
Most veteran home buyers I know wouldn’t need to ask how they could buy a home in the Phoenix real estate market. They’d simply do it. And you could tell just by looking that they were veterans (if not licensed real estate professionals) and not amateurs trying their best to keep up.
In a vague way this cuts back to the debate over who pays the buyers’ agent. As I’ve said many times before, when I am shown concrete evidence that a sales price will be lower because no buyers’ agent is being paid by the seller, I’ll accept the argument that the buyer is paying their agent in the sales price.
But as long as I see sellers pocketing (or expecting to pocket) the commission they had earmarked for a buyers’ agent – proof positive that there was no difference in price solely on the basis of the presence of a buyers’ agent, the argument falls flat.
[tags]Phoenix real estate, divorced commissions[/tags]