If you've done a number of deals and watch the market closely - you are right, chances are you can get deals done on your own without me. Where I benefit savvy clients though is mostly in a) current market information b) current contract information c) advance / non-public information d) project management e) resources / referrals / connections f) sometimes even with a savvy buyer and seller, it helps to have someone in the middle to bring the deal together, Ie: someone has to do the paperwork and make the trains run on time.
Where I work, there's added complexity to the market in part by the variety of properties and the shortage of skilled agents. Of the licensed agents in the area, only about 30% are actually "full-time" agents, and of that 30% very few will do much outside standard residential work - and we've got several types of specialty agriculture, bare land, commercial, and we are on a state line. Our forms in both states have been going through a surprising amount of volatility the past few years, as have what I'll call "practices", Ie: what's considered normal buyer / seller responsibilities and negotiating chips. For example - with one of these practices I saw a way that our area was behind the times, I started doing things differently and it put my clients in a negotiating position such that my sellers were getting a much higher return relative to comparable properties.
I agree on negotiating skills - unfortunately, the public seem to pick agents based on who they know socially rather than on professional abilities. Finally, to your point about negotiating - one of the challenges for many buyers (and sellers) is that they really don't know the value of a property or where it should sell. So for example many buyers (assuming they aren't in a competitive situation - in which case it's a different set of strategies) will offer some stupidly low number in hopes to get the seller to come back with a reduced price. It's "let's split the difference" negotiating, rather than a data-driven approach. So for example when we go into a negotiation, we don't just index off of the asking price, but rather we've done a market analysis (as a example) of our own and thus have arrived at what we believe to be the fair market price. From that, anything below that number is gravy. So when I not only negotiate below the asking price, but below where we believe the property should fairly sell, then we've really won for the client. Or likewise when I'm on the sellers side, there's a whole slew of ways I set us up pre-market to put us in the best possible position. Even knowing how to read the possibly negotiating strategies for a property, or what "levers and dials" are available in a negotiation isn't something that the general public understands - if you've done a number of deals on your own, you may have developed this expertise.
Where I work, there's added complexity to the market in part by the variety of properties and the shortage of skilled agents. Of the licensed agents in the area, only about 30% are actually "full-time" agents, and of that 30% very few will do much outside standard residential work - and we've got several types of specialty agriculture, bare land, commercial, and we are on a state line. Our forms in both states have been going through a surprising amount of volatility the past few years, as have what I'll call "practices", Ie: what's considered normal buyer / seller responsibilities and negotiating chips. For example - with one of these practices I saw a way that our area was behind the times, I started doing things differently and it put my clients in a negotiating position such that my sellers were getting a much higher return relative to comparable properties.
I agree on negotiating skills - unfortunately, the public seem to pick agents based on who they know socially rather than on professional abilities. Finally, to your point about negotiating - one of the challenges for many buyers (and sellers) is that they really don't know the value of a property or where it should sell. So for example many buyers (assuming they aren't in a competitive situation - in which case it's a different set of strategies) will offer some stupidly low number in hopes to get the seller to come back with a reduced price. It's "let's split the difference" negotiating, rather than a data-driven approach. So for example when we go into a negotiation, we don't just index off of the asking price, but rather we've done a market analysis (as a example) of our own and thus have arrived at what we believe to be the fair market price. From that, anything below that number is gravy. So when I not only negotiate below the asking price, but below where we believe the property should fairly sell, then we've really won for the client. Or likewise when I'm on the sellers side, there's a whole slew of ways I set us up pre-market to put us in the best possible position. Even knowing how to read the possibly negotiating strategies for a property, or what "levers and dials" are available in a negotiation isn't something that the general public understands - if you've done a number of deals on your own, you may have developed this expertise.