Buying a house without an agent?

We have always used agents for buying and selling, but my guess would be that agents would be more comfortable working with other agents as opposed to an attorney. You may not be paying a buyer's agent fee but you will have to pay the attorney - personally the cost savings would not be worth it to me. In my experience, sales in highly desirable markets are VERY relationship based, and can make the difference. 

Unless this is an off-market transaction with someone you know, you would not be a successful bidder. The seller's agent would not want to work with you because they know you are an amateur and they would be doing more work, and they will advise the seller to pass on your offer. This is based on my experience buying and selling single family homes in the Berkeley area in the last 12 months (with an agent).

The market is incredibly relationship based here. We got both our condo (10 years ago) and our house (5 years ago) because of the relationship our agent had with the selling agent. She was able to chat with the agent to learn what they were concerned with, what would help our offer be more attractive, how much interest there was. I know we wouldn't have our house without that relationship. Same goes for who does your mortage too. I don't personally know anyone who has managed to buy a house in this market without an agent, but I'm sure it's been done! Good luck! 

If I was the seller - and I have been pretty recently - I would not want to sell to a buyer who doesn't have an agent. I'd have the perception that the deal could more easily fall apart and would be too high risk. The risks of the transaction not working out would be higher than not paying the buyer fee. Also, if you're kind of already in this nickel and diming mindset, I'd worry about that as a seller as to what you might try to negotiate as the transaction proceeds. I'd only consider selling to a buyer with no agent if I was in a desperate circumstance and didn't get multiple offers and basically had nothing to lose. I admire your interest in fighting the system - real estate agent fees are too high in my opinion and illogically percentage based - but I don't see you coming out ahead this way, at least in the Bay Area market.

We recently bought a new home and then sold our previous home (with an agent) and I am constantly disappointed with how little the agents do for their sizable fees, and how in-transparent they can be about the process.  I don't see any reason to try it without an agent- what do you have to lose?  If you are unsuccessful in one or more offers, you can always sign on with an agent later.  

We have friends who tried this approach and have reason to believe it's why they weren't selected for a house where they had made a competitive offer.  I feel like agents tend to feel threatened by this approach, even if they're not supposed to take that into consideration?

I’d think twice about going without a buyer’s agent here. In 99% of East Bay transactions, the seller pays the buyer’s agent commission, so you’re not saving money by going it alone—you’re just leaving the seller’s agent to represent both sides.

This market is highly relationship-driven, and a good buyer’s agent brings more than contract guidance: they know how to present a competitive offer, have existing relationships with listing agents, and can flag local issues like mandatory sewer lateral compliance, Berkeley’s BESO energy audit, and EMBER fire hardening rules—things many attorneys won’t know in depth.

Finally, some listing agents view unrepresented buyers as more work and risk, which can make your offer less attractive, not more.