Do I need a realtor?

[ambiguator]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

preface:
I am interested in one particular investment property (a home), and I don't need a realtor's services of showing me any other listings. I am neither a realtor or lawyer myself.

2-part question:
1. In PA, am I legally obliged to retain a realtor for the purchase of the property?
2. If not, what risks do I face when purchasing the property myself? In other words, what other services does the realtor provide?

Sorry if part 2 seems like a silly question, but all I can find online is a bunch of marketing hogwash about how the realtor works for you blah blah blah.

Thanks in advance.

 

[justalayman]

No, you are neither required to obtain the services of a Realtor® nor the services of a real estate agent. You can do this all on your own but if you are unfamiliar with the process, it is better to obtain the services of either a real estate agent or a lawyer that understands real estate law, or both.

Not trying to diminish the importance of a RE agent but their most basic purpose is as a salesman. Part of the process of the sale is to oversee the actions required to bring a sale to fruition. They are the overseers. That can be a very important act if the buyer or seller is ignorant of the process.

 

[nextwife]

If the property is listed, you will still need to go through their listing agent, and skipping the agent won't change the seller's commission payment.

 

[ambiguator]

thank you justalayman and nextwife for your quick feedback.

I realize that i'll have to go through the seller's agent, but my primary motivation in forgoing my own agent is to avoid buyer's agent fees.

I purchased my primary residence via a buyer's and seller's agent, so I'm somewhat familiar with the process. Though my realtor was invaluable during our home search, after we found the property we wanted transaction seemed relatively rote (ie. the realtor stopped being very useful).

 

[nextwife]

thank you justalayman and nextwife for your quick feedback.

I realize that i'll have to go through the seller's agent, but my primary motivation in forgoing my own agent is to avoid buyer's agent fees.

I purchased my primary residence via a buyer's and seller's agent, so I'm somewhat familiar with the process. Though my realtor was invaluable during our home search, after we found the property we wanted transaction seemed relatively rote (ie. the realtor stopped being very useful).

The full agreed listing commission will be due the listing agent regardless. If 6%, for example, and they would co broke 2.4 to the selling agent, the seller will still owe 6% (or whatever the contractual listing commission would be), whether you use a cobroke or not.

 

[ecmst12]

Not using a buyers agent just means the seller's agent gets more money. You shouldn't have to come out of your pocket for any of the agent fees regardless.

 

[QueenofEngland]

If you're not familiar enough with the state laws to answer this question, then you need a buyer's agent.

If you choose not to anyway, the listing agent and broker will get more money.

 

[ecmst12]

So far as I can tell, the only person who benefits from the buyer not having their own agent is the seller's agent. The cost to both the buyer and seller are the same regardless. I don't think it's ever in the buyer's interest to NOT have an agent.