Local RE Agent vs Non-local RE Agent

[Henry Hill]

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.

Best,
Henry

[Nate Burgher]

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.