Well, this is a loaded question. The short answer is yes, you should most definitely have representation when making one of the biggest financial decisions of your life. However, it is not that simple. The answer of “yes” would imply that every agent is proficient and educated on the process of buyer representation and all that goes in to it. And, if you asked me “are they?” my answer would be a resounding “no”. The quality of agents within real estate may have the widest range of variation for any industry. There are agents that are well-versed on all aspects of negotiation, quality of construction, location implications, forecasted growth, anticipated carrying costs, potential detriments; then there are agents with little to no value-add through representation. For example, on a recent listing of mine I had multiple “buyer agents” submit offers without ever coming to view the home – all after I held a broker tour + four public open houses. Additionally, they advised their buyer’s to waive home inspections without every laying eyes on the property or asking about age of systems and mechanicals, questioning if any planned or recent repairs/assessments, who else lives in the building; etc. I find it incredibly hard to understand how an agent can “advise” a buyer to spend $1,000,000 without ever seeing the property or, at the very least, ask targeted questions.

The reasons for such a wide range of quality in today’s real estate agent (imo) has a few contributing factors:

• There is very very low barrier to entry. A remedial course and subsequent “test” are all it takes to become licensed. Now, compare that to a finance professional who must go through the CFA, Series 7; etc. It is drastically different qualifications, but both operating in a similar realm in that they are giving advice on large investments.
• Social media and third party (pay-to-play) websites such as Zillow, Redfin; etc can make people believe an agent is qualified much more easily than years ago. It has become far more difficult for buyers (and sellers) to decipher who is legitimate.
• There is mis-aligned incentives for buyer agents (ie. they only get paid if you purchase). This can lead agents to give bad advice in the pursuit of their own interests.
• The development of the “real estate team” has watered down the quality of service in many instances. It used to be that the agent you hired was the agent that represented. Now it is so often the case that you hire the “team lead” and are then given a subordinate “team member” to represent you. Many times the team members are inexperienced and would otherwise not meet standard to work for a specific company (ie. not enough sale history to meet baseline for a company to hire). This is a great model for team leaders as they can scale more easily and create a wider net with little to no out of pocket cost. But, it doesn’t always serve the consumer.
• With the availability of information online, I frequently see that buyers have more knowledge of a specific area and property value than the buyer agent does.

So, to summarize a short answer having turned long…. Yes, you should have a buyer agent! But no, it is not one-size-fits-all. You need to complete thorough diligence before hiring/trusting someone to best represent you. A good buyer agent can save you tens (and sometimes even hundreds of thousands) of dollars on purchase.