I don't put any stock in those "averages".  It depends on so many factors that don't apply to individual markets.  Our little market in North Central Washington can in no way be compared to southern California for example.  It's B.S. to compare them.  Besides that, there is no way to prove what a home would have sold for with agent assistance when it was sold FSBO.  The whole premise is faulty on many levels.

National stats have very little meaning in local markets.  For that stat to hold true, we'd basically be saying every FSBO is mentally challenged and has no clue in how to determine pricing.  There's just too much information publically available for sellers to reasonably be that far off.  Let's say they used Zestimates to set their prices, they'd still only be 10-15% off, if even that much.  So unless the national median price is around 600k (which I don't think it is), then that 65k number doesn't carry water.  Bill

I don't because it can be a very misleading number. I have no doubt that an agent assisted sale will probably net a seller more than trying to do it on their own, but I don't quote numbers like that. Then again, I virtually never speak with FSBO's and my seller prospects don't typically think of being one.

Whether or not it's true it would not fit my market Mel Ahrens, MBA, Kelly Right Real Estate Our average home price is just under $200,000.

I would tend to ignore such information if I was a consumer. If I don't find the info "worthy" it's not going to be repeated.

NAR stats are nationwide that does not apply to the local market. I use information from our local MLS.

no, I don't use anything provided by NAR....  real estate is local.... and I use local information that's from MLS when I share stats....

Mel,

That is quite a claim to make, and now I would not ever use it.  A

No, because it's total bs that can't be proven. Garbage claims like that just adds to the already negative view much of the public already has towards real estate agents.

Nope.

Personally, I think FSBO's are usually overpriced. I don't use stats like that

No, I don't, Mel.  National statistic is not the same as local.  Also, it depends on the price range of the home.  Here in my market, we can get a home for $250k.  A $64,900 difference is not making any sense, the seller has to be completely desperate to sell that low.  Perhaps if the home needs a lot of repairs and they are selling as is.

No. I don't go after the FSBO market. If I did I would come from contribution - helping them succeed, not from scare tactics.

I don't do FSBO listings but when I sold traditional real estate they were always the easiest to get under contract below market value.

Most of what I see coming out of NAR is misleading and puts us on the defensive with the public. NAR does not represent me.

Stats can be misleading.

No because I don't believe a word of it. Never saw 'credible' stats to prove it. 

We don't even have mfg. housing in my area so now what on those stats?

Stats can be used many ways - often thrown up in the air.

Don't know any FSBO coaches that use those numbers either.

When this approach is taken, the results can go either way. Some may see it as a challenge to their capability while others will see it as a warning not to

No.

I have my own marketing plan for fsbo's and dont use national averages. It is true that fsbos sell for less and most fsbos i speak with have already tried, and found it harder to sell on their own than they thought

it is up to 13% not a dollar amount until you know the market for each.

I’d rather look at what % of FSBO’s actually do succeed in selling their home themselves. It’s less than 15% !!!

No. I would not use a national stat (or one made up) to impress home sellers. FSBO's think they are saving money by taking agents out of the equation and their properties are often so overpriced that true market comps may not convince them to list either.

Nope, never did when I worked with some FSBO's. While it may be an average, not such how much application is has for the local market.

I would if I worked that market.

I do not go after FSBO's  

Thanks for the link to the full report. I don't use that FSBO stat in my presentation although I do have other NAR statistics in there that I will be updating for 2018. 

I just don't put any energy on what NAR does and the many deceptions in the world.  The NAR report means nothing to me - not relevant in my market.

I wouldn't buy those numbers. Plus, some of the "higher" price goes to pay the agents.

You bet!

However, the smart agent must be prepared for the squeeze and substantiate this Vanity Metric with local data the homeowner will believe.

Telling a homeowner they are wrong in the decision they have made often ends with the confirmation, for them,  of what real estate agents are made of....vanity.

For such averages to work, a group must agree on what the local average home is. That rarely includes the house segment the FSBO belongs to.

I quote NOTHING from NAR but do use local STATS. And I do love using the stats of those agents who sold the house in 2 days. That data is even more damning and much more believable by a homeowner than what spews from the office of NAR.

Two other things to consider, the majority of homes are sold with an agent.  More homes = wider price points and more to draw on.

Second thing, the price points.  I've never seen a $40 million dollar home listed on Craigslist or Zillow as a FSBO. It just doesn't happen.  Not to mention the $300 million dollar Spelling mansion or any of the celebrity homes you see listed in the eight figures.  Of course listed homes will sell for more on average, because they have a several times multiplier of homes sold and they have homes that are priced for the 1% of the 1%.

Most old timers gains 7 figures and the commission to list is negotiable. Is 0.5% too high to seller?

Real estate is local, so I use the stats that would include a specific neighborhood or area.

Hello Mel,  No but good information and something I should.

No thoughts since I have never worked with a FSBO.