Hello again BP universe!!! I thought I might gather suggestions/opinions on using a local vs non-local real estate agent for acquiring (and listing) investment property.
As a new investor, I have been introduced to a non-local real estate broker/agent through a mutual mortgage-broker connection because the RE broker/agent is also a RE investor himself. This broker/agent immediately set me up with a daily recurring emailed property search-report based on my investment criteria (although, there hasn't yet been a property on his automated report that I haven't already viewed or previously marked using Zillow, Redfin, etc.). However, the RE broker/agent hasn't represented any clients/properties in my target area for what seems to be a couple of years now (or perhaps even a few years). The broker/agent's primary listing area is about 30 minutes from my target area.
On the other hand, I am aware of another RE agent that has worked with local investors and sold properties in my target area within the last 12 months (and for the highest of returns, I might add).
If, in terms of function, all agents are created equal, would there not be an advantage to working with an agent who is active in your target area vs an otherwise capable agent (in terms of function) whom isn't / hasn't been active in your target area for some time?
Thanks in advance for all input.
Hey @Henry Hill , personally I don't think I would buy in a market with a realtor that isn't in that market. I need someone that is in the know of all the neighborhoods, local government policies, where the jobs are relative to properties, what kind of people would be buying / renting from me, etc. If I don't have a realtor that has knowledge of the area, then a darn well better have people in the area that have that kind of knowledge I just listed.
Just my two cents.
Thank you @Nate Burgher for your input! Valid points, for sure. That's what I have been thinking as well. Just seems like common sense logic to have someone active in your area on your team. I'm grateful for his willingness to assist me, but the more I think about it (and learn more about real estate investing), the more I lean toward working with a local agent.
Thanks, again, for sharing.
@Henry Hill There is no bad move here. If you are trying to establish a relationship with 1 agent to handle all of your deals, then choose the most competent one. They will be able to apply their experience and know-how to any area, whether it is their direct market or not.
However, if you are planning to ONLY purchase in this target area, the local agent would be an asset because they may know of pocket listings, special disclosures, and so forth.
Either agent will serve you well, but if the local agent isn't the powerhouse that you want to work with you outside of that targeted area, then you are better off going with the first one. Again, neither one will be a bad choice from your description.
In my personal opinion I would find an agent local to the area you want to buy. I am licensed in NYS, but if I was looking to purchase something anywhere near NYC, I would have a local representative. I have sent people to other agents where I felt I did not know the area well enough to give good solid counsel. I must also note though that 30 minutes away is not very far in the RE world. If an agent is within 30 minutes I would expect them to have a solid understanding of the area.
Pocket listings, etc. are great points @Cara Lonsdale . For now, I am definitely focused only on my target area. I appreciate your input :-)
@Mike Cumbie I agree... and I suppose 30 minutes isn't too far away. I appreciate your input!