As a prospective buyer of real estate looking for ways to minimize my
costs, I'm thinking...

Perhaps all those amateur sellers out there that are going it alone
are at a disadvantage. They don't have an experienced real estate
agent advising them.

What are the weaknesses of sellers that are going the "For Sale by
Owner" route? I am thinking there must be negotiating, legal nuance
and other angles that can be exploited here.

I've sold houses myself, to avoid the Agency Fees.

I have always been VERY happy with the results and I believe that I
netted more than by using agents.

Generally, I have been VERY unimpressed by agents.

Augusta-ga

You have probably got things the wrong way round

People who are doing 'For Sale by Owner' are most likely a lot more
sophisticated than people who use agents.

The really vulnerable people are the sad ones who go to an agent, who
then grossly undervalues the property and sells it to one of his/her
friends.

Hi Augusta,

Like many industries, the minority of "shonky operators" magnify the
negative aspects of experiences. Probo and Frde have made valid
comment. Each dealing can be measured only on it's own merit. Price is
one thing, securing a deal is another.

I too have bought and sold without an agent. I avoided conveyancing
fees on a purchase by doing the legal stuff myself. Friends have
successfuly done similar in selling. All is well, until a problem
arises. That's where the agent and solicitor earn their money. A real
estate agent acts on deals in property for a living. How often do the
average Mum and Dad turn over their house? They read a few books,
check the latest sales, read the newspaper and decide that they are
instant experts. Problems arise through assumptions of the law,
presumed market values and then misunderstandings of what's included,
settlement periods, "subject to" clauses and negotiations. This
doesn't mean that you will be advantaged as the buyer. It just means
that your negotiations will be slowed, opening up more time for other
buyers to gazump your verbal offer.

That's where the middle man helps, to play one against the other,
sometimes without even picking up the 'phone. In the case of the
agent, they are acting for the vendor.

I guess that's how you think you might negotiate with an owner/seller.
You might argue your price down due to the abscence of agent's fees.
The vendor wants to realise full market value regardless of the agent,
so your negotiation on that point would be fruitless. The vendor wants
that saving in their pocket, not yours.

As for Frde's comment on underpricing to sell to friends, as valid as
it may seem, it is not the norm from my experience. Frde's comment has
taken the assumption that the agent has ownership of control over the
sale. That's crap. The vendor has that final control. If an agent's
friend buys the house, so what? As long as it meets market value,
everyone wins. Also, many agent's will suggest a higher market price
achievable to gain the listing. After weeks of conditioning the
vendor, the price will be reduced to meet the market.

Auctions seem to quickly bring to reality the true market price. It's
what someone is prepared to pay on the day. Tomorrow, the same
property will realise a different figure or be passed in based on the
vendor's reserve.

Agent or no agent, the vendor wants top dollar. 

Phil

Oh dear Phil ... you are an INNOCENT!

Auctions are sometimes rigged ... and they do not guarantee top return.

Silly as it may seem, junk often brings in a better price and the good
stuff goes for less than it should.

THE GOLDEN RULE is TRUST NOBODY ... except your dog who is probably
too dumb to outwit you.

Bryan,

Well, I must admit that I have made the odd "dummy" bid on behalf of a vendor.

Phil