We received this comment yesterday from Reader Erika on a post I wrote last December on home staging:

What seller’s need to understand is staging is not about making the home look pretty, it’s about allowing the potential buyers to envision themselves in the home.

I agree, but it is mostly an issue of semantics. Staging is about making the home “look pretty” to the greatest number of potential buyers. In short, staging is about neutralizing.

I’ve written before about this idea of staging to create mass appeal. What staging shouldn’t be is a game of smoke-and-mirrors deceit. Think of it as make-up versus dress-up.  My grandmother in the old days used to talk about “putting on her face” in the morning. She wouldn’t have dreamed of leaving the house without undergoing a personal staging ritual involving foundation, blush, mascara, and, I suspect, a few blowtorches. And when she did hit the produce isle, she looked admittedly better, but no one was going to mistake her for Betty Grable. She was still quite clearly my grandmother.

That’s an example of good staging – undergoing a transformation from a natural, lived-in state of dishevelment to the point where people might be, if not proud to hang out with you, at least able to see past you to the bananas without undue distraction.

Now let’s say my grandmother woke up each morning and donned a rabbit suit. Everyone loves fuzzy bunnies, but now Grandmother is just a spectacle. So busy are folks gawking at the costume that they have forgotten they are there to buy something. More importantly, it’s disingenuous. Once people start to realize that there is a grandmother under that cottontail, they might feel a little put off and give up the shopping idea altogether in favor of take-out.

We have a tired mantra at our house. “Sometimes it just is what it is.” (I’m making t-shirts, by the way.) You can soften the hard edges with plants and candles — you can set the table, repaint the pink wall in Sienna Sand, move the Civil War artillery weapons collection into storage and even put lipstick on grandmother – and all of these things will help to make the backdrop more inviting. But people will eventually learn the truth. None of it changes the basic infrastructure.

Which brings me to my point. Sometimes honestly is just the best policy, particularly where marketing is concerned. More specifically, overselling is more dangerous than going commando with no “staging” at all.

We have all seen the brochures, the ones that tell us a home is “model perfect,” only to arrive at the subject home that looks like the site of Custer’s last stand. Absent a more delicate way to put it, let me just say this: It pisses buyers off. They feel duped, and at that point it doesn’t matter how perfect the floor plan might have been or how much potential they might have seen; they are moving on.

Which brings me to the photos. Over the years, we have used many photographers for our clients’ listings. Some time this past year we changed photographers again. The reason? The last photographer’s pictures were too good. Not only were potential buyers repeatedly expressing disappointment that the homes looked “better in the pictures,” but many sellers were conceding as much. Our brochures were starting to feel like we were depicting Grandmother in that bunny suit.

Don’t get me wrong; our photos are still awesome, but they are honest. Apparently, not all agents subscribe to the whole truth in advertising thing.

Yesterday, I received the photos for our most recent listing. The photographer asked me this:

“We have been processing this house, and we didn’t remember if you asked us to green the back yard.  I have attached a version both ways to give you an idea of what it will look like.  Do you prefer green or natural?”

Green the backyard? Do agents really do that?

Here were my choices. Guess which one I will be using? (Answer: Sometimes it is what it is.)

First there was this big online debate going on about whether real estate is in fact a relationships business or simply “all business” that got me thinking about the agent selection dilemma. The argument, I believe, is largely semantics. It’s not important that our clients “like” us on Facebook, nor is it necessary that we become best beer drinking buds. The fact remains, however, that beneath every successful real estate transaction is some foundation of a relationship.

The same applies to any business, in fact. I don’t have to have a connection with my doctor – a relationship in the traditional and personal sense – but I do need to feel a connection on some level when I am discussing personal details. I have changed physicians more than once because they forgot their bedside manner somewhere back in 1960. And when one doctor suggested we run a routine test on a little internal thingy he, himself, had surgically removed twelve months earlier, I was not a satisfied customer, yet it had nothing to do with his competence. The actual surgery had gone swimmingly; the fact that I wasn’t important enough to him that he might have remembered — or even have taken a moment to review my chart and fake it — was the issue. Competence alone is not enough.

Real estate agents aren’t doctors, fair enough. We may really hit it off. But how do you know I’m any good at this real estate schtick? How do you measure competence?

Rob Hahn wrote on the topic:

I do not believe that consumers hire real estate agents because of the agent’s skill. The reason is largely that the consumer has no real way of evaluating agent skill.

They don’t, yet they do.

In Rob’s defense, sometimes the nexus between customer satisfaction and agent skill is missing. I have been involved in too many transactions with knucklehead “cooperating brokers” where their clients were by all accounts giddy with the experience, and yet I spent the entire transaction putting out fires and cleaning up their messes to save the sale for my own clients. There is perception, and there is reality.

Also in Rob’s defense, there is so much misinformation being spewed out there in the name of marketing that it’s often hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. One local broker likes to advertise that he has the best “client loyalty” record in all of the Delta Quadrant. Try proving (or disproving) that. My saying that I am a Top Producer, or that I provide superior service – that I am smarter, a better negotiator, or more ethical – does not make it so.  We all say that.

So how does a consumer evaluate the skill of an unknown? Today, thankfully, this is far easier than it was two years or two decades ago. People ask their friends, and by “people,” I mean a new generation of homebuyers and sellers who seek social validation for all of their choices.

Jim Klinge offered his tips for evaluating agents.

He had me head bobbing  — until the end.

“The BEST way to evaluate a realtor is by how many homes they have sold this year.”

Sorry Jim, but that’s only sort of right. I agree that an agent cannot be involved in just one or two transactions a year and possibly stay on top of their game. Too much of the experience we espouse can come only by having been involved in the play situations. But shear numbers alone do not guarantee excellence.

The right answer, I believe, is this:

The BEST way to evaluate a realtor is to consider both the number of transactions and the nature of those transactions.

You see, I can sell fifty homes a year, but if they are all one-hit wonders, all first-time customers I snagged because they bought into my awesome self-promotion and hollow claims, and who hired me untested and on faith, I have proven nothing – except, perhaps, that I am really good at marketing myself. What matters is the “repeat offenders” – those clients who used my services again or referred me to their friends.

In that spirit, and because we are big fans of transparency, here is where Steve and I stand today. (This, by the way, is in between running a brokerage, and it represents the efforts of two little brokers with no REO gig to their credit and nary a transaction coordinator or assistant in sight. And it does not include the transactions closed by our other San Diego Castles Realty agents. It does, however, include our own closings year-to-date plus the escrows we have in the hopper.)

Sales/Sales Pending: 35

Number of sales representing past clients or past client referrals: 17

There are agents who will sell far more homes this year – and far fewer. What’s important is that nearly half of our business came from people for whom we were a known quantity, and they were willing to engage again or suggest that their friends do so. Therein lies the true relationship aspect of the business.

And what about the newer agents? That’s where the real holes in Jim’s theory, and even mine, come in. Newer agents don’t have the years under their belt to have established a lengthy list of past clients. And, I am not prepared to concede that newer agents with fewer sales are by definition inferior. This is where the brokerage and the leadership become important. We have agents who have been working as agents for just a handful of years, not a decade or more, yet I would trust each of them with each one of my clients. This is because we have standards, we have expectations, we have mentoring and we have oversight. Those things are hard to implement with a cast of thousands in a corporate environment.

But what if you don’t have “friends” to ask? Well, the newest generations of homebuyers and sellers have redefined “friend” much like I may be redefining “relationship.” Their search box and social networks are full of them – thousands and thousands of them. You can even find some of them here.

“When will home prices start rising in San Diego?”

That was a recent question posted on Trulia Voices. I love questions like this, because as a trained professional, a Neighborhood Specialist no less, this is where I can really shine.

You see, predicting the future is my forte. Just yesterday I predicted that Mizzou would come back in the second half against Oklahoma and… OK. That one didn’t got too well. But college football is so unpredictable. Real estate trends, on the other hand, are those things by which you can set your clock.

So, let’s set our clocks. Home prices will start rising on Wednesday, April 4, 2012. At 3:07 PM.  That said, start cleaning out your garages. I am. I wasn’t really planning on moving, but with the way time flies and all, riches may be just around the corner.

That’s what a home is, right? A big ol’ piggy bank?

Yet, as I gaze at the project before me, my garage isn’t speaking to me with the objective voice of a commodity. I see Barbie Dreamhouses abandoned in favor of science fair projects and proms, roller blades long ago outgrown by once tiny feet that have since sprouted wings, photo albums, boxes of memorabilia, and the lawn chairs that used to sit curb side while much younger parents watched a promenade of water fights and training wheels.

Suddenly, I’m not sure I want to move, certainly not for the sake of capitalizing on the potential windfall of a healthier real estate market. Rather, I will move when my life dictates that it is time. And, I am grateful that, for me, it will be a choice. Because behind every front door lies not a balance sheet but a home. Within each home lives not day traders but families. And so many, as Albert Clawson so eloquently reminds us, do not have the luxury of choosing. Read it. Now. We live it every day.

But what if moving isn’t a necessity? Is it a great time to buy? To sell? Maybe. Interest rates are insanely low, and while prices are low as well in the context of the present real estate cycle, so is inventory.  Ultimately, it is a great time to buy or sell when it makes sense for you, whatever the reason or the motivation. And when that time comes, whether it is tomorrow or Wednesday, April 4, 2012 sometime after lunch, we can help. That’s what we do — help real people buy and sell homes. You can find us cleaning out the garage.

Video. It’s the next big thing. Or it’s the last big thing that’s still a big thing. I’m not sure anymore, but I prefer the former because I have yet to embrace the medium. That means there is still time for me.

The problem with adopting video in our biz is that it is difficult to do it well. And unless one has a whole lot of time on their hands, a whole lot of extra cash lying around, or a really talented friend who is willing to produce and edit films for beer (all things absent from my arsenal, with the exception of the beer), the result can do more harm than good.

Like the idea of staging a home is to draw attention away from the stuff and to the thing you are selling, real estate video is supposed to showcase a property, and by “showcase,” I mean it is supposed to appear more appealing for having been digitally honored.

Pan and zoom photos set to stock audio is not video. Nor is a two-minute short of a do-it-yourself agent standing beneath an address placard reciting the vital statistics, like my own first – and last – attempt.

“Hi. I’m Kris. This stunning home has four bedrooms, a kitchen, and closets. Follow me while I back away from the tripod and into the glaring backlight of the garden windows while I awkwardly describe all of the special features you can’t see. Like linoleum.”

Oh, I tried the once popular walk-through approach. The advantage is that I can film and talk from a safe harbor behind the lens. But the result is always an epic that can only be enjoyed from the prone position with a fresh prescription of Dramamine. I eventually had to concede that my time was better spent stuffing the brochure box.

Why, oh why, can’t I do this? Beverly Hills agent Eric Lavey nailed it with this property video, a short film really. My big question is this: Can even Eric pull off twenty or thirty sequels a year? My guess is he will become a one-hit wonder, something with which I am quite familiar.

6816 Pacific View Drive, Hollywood Hills from Eric Lavey on Vimeo.

Brian Boero calls it the “most disruptive online real estate play in years.” He was talking about Redfin’s new agent scouting reports.

Here is the short version. Straight from the MLS to you, Redfin now brings you statistics on closed transactions for every real estate agent who is a member of the MLS in their market areas. They call it their Agent Scouting Report, and it sounds good on the face.

As quoted on the 1000Watt blog, Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman had this to say:

In some cases, what you’ll see is that an agent at another brokerage is a better fit for that neighborhood, an inevitability that has been a source of great controversy within Redfin. Why would we ever help anyone realize that a Coldwell Banker agent is her best choice?

But once you ask that question, you’ve already framed the debate in terms of short-term consequences rather than long-term principles. It leads you down a path where every market analysis concludes that it’s a good time to buy, and every review of a Redfin agent is five-stars.

The world doesn’t need more brokers like that. It needs a broker who will just tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We’ll win more clients that way than we’ll lose — and we’ll win everyone’s trust.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So noble! Except, that is, when the presentation of the “truth” is conveniently inconsistent. I’m calling horse hooey.

It’s important to remember that Redfin is first and foremost a real estate brokerage. They are not philanthropists or public servants. Their goal is to profit, not to selflessly educate and empower the poor, confused consumer. Publishing agent ratings online may or may not be a good idea, but if Redfin didn’t perceive it as a good idea for their business and bottom line, they wouldn’t bother.

The potential gold from agent “scouting reports” is being mined in two ways. First, and most obviously, the data will likely prove to be the SEO mother lode, adding eyes and value to an already (admittedly) robust website providing an awesome home search experience. (This much I am willing to admit. I am a reasonable guy.) What may be less readily apparent is that, despite Mr. Kelman’s protestations that principles made him do it, it is an opportunity to portray Redfin agents as being among the top in production.

First, I’ll begin by saying that while there have been complaints of data inaccuracy in some markets (in fact causing Redfin to temporarily suspend the agent reports in Washington, D.C. and Arizona), my very quick look at the San Diego data suggests the numbers are mostly correct. But, as with all numbers, they are subject to interpretation.

Without caveat or context, the consumer is left to make sense of a bunch of statistics being offered up like tablets from the mountaintop.  And the biggest issue I see is the reporting problem associated with the popular agent team model. This, by the way, is only a problem for traditional agents; for Redfin, it is an opportunity to use imperfect data to their benefit. I believe they know exactly what they are doing, but more on my conspiracy theory in a moment.

Take the typical agent. They work solo. They show homes, list homes, meet the property inspector, the appraiser and the termite guy, they write and negotiate the contracts, and  — well, you get the idea. This agent may close 10 or 20 or 50 transactions in a year, and it’s all there on the website for your enjoyment.

Now, take an agent team. In the team concept, all sales are recorded under the team leader’s name. The team may be a husband and wife team (guilty as charged), it may be a group of agents numbering several or several dozen (effectively a brokerage within a brokerage), or it may in fact be a brokerage. In these cases, the scouting reports for the individual licensees working under the front man or woman will suggest that they have no visible means of support and that your transaction will represent their maiden voyage into the exciting world of real property transactions. The team leader, on the other hand, will appear to be the hottest thing since Tabasco. For the consumer, there is no way to make the distinction.

Who is the better agent? The team leader or the traditional agent who is CEO, COO, CFO, Customer Service Rep, IT Department, and head dishwasher? That is up to the consumer to decide. What is important is that you can’t answer that question just by looking at the numbers.

But what if that’s all you’ve got? Enter Redfin. Unless you live in a lean-to far above base camp, you know that their lead agents do the high profile work – they ink the contracts, and the sales record under their names. Behind them, however, is a host of support staff, from field agents who actually show the homes to transaction coordinators who actually do the transactional work.

As Seattle agent Marlow Harris wrote, “Traditional agents don’t have ‘field agents’ to show homes or millions of dollars of other people’s money to build websites or to refund in the form of buyers rebates… They (Redfin) are doing it to make themselves look good and to manipulate the numbers to give the impression that their agency and individual agents are superior.”

Do I hate that Redfin is publishing this data? Not really, as long as the data is accurate. My numbers are solid. Have at it. What I do take issue with is the feigned higher ground upon which they are planting this flag. Admit that you are publishing statistics for profit and in a way that suggests your agents are awesome sauce compared to the rest of us, other “lesser” agents, and then you might at least win my respect on points.

For the big finish, I’ll offer this interesting observation. If transparency is truly your motive and altruism your end game, why portray the numbers differently for Redfin and non-Redfin agents?

Look me up, and you will find many search choices: Sellers in last 12 months; buyers in last 12 months; sellers in last 3 years; and buyers in last three years.

Now look up a San Diego Refin agent. What you get is clients in the last twelve months. What happened to the buyer/seller breakdown? What about the three-year history?

My guess is that with a little time and traction under their belt, that might change – because the numbers will suddenly smile more favorably on Redfin. That is, after all, the point — make no mistake. Caveat emptor.

Update: Redfin pulled their Agent Scouting Reports yesterday citing issues with the data. That didn’t take long.

We’re #1! We sell more homes than all of the other agents south of Barstow put together. Our clients love us biggest. And by “biggest,” I mean they love us way more than any other agent’s clients love them. That is because we are awesome sauce, with a heaping jug of extra awesome thrown in. We sell our listings faster and for a factor of 10 – or even 20 – more than our “competitors.”

Here is what our clients are saying:

“Kris and Steve were awesome sauce, and we love them biggest! They didn’t suck, and we sold our home for $17 million dollars more than we expected to, in large part due to their brilliant marketing campaign, their expert negotiations, and their attention to detail – like the time Steve met the termite guy. We named our newborn twins after them. (Too bad they were both girls.) Thanks, Kris and Steve!

With undying gratitude,

Name Withheld

I made that up. So what? Is misleading, even false, advertising such a big deal? All the cool kids are doing it.

I was chatting with a prominent local agent this week. He called to voice his frustration with some of the misleading advertising he has been seeing in our community.  The ads have not been lost on me, of course. Many are quite obviously works of fiction, but then this agent and I know how much business others are doing – or not. We know who has which homes listed, and who represented the buyers on closed sales. And we know the reputations of the agents doing business in our local community.

Many, dare I say “most,” home buyers or sellers do not. But they do have access to the data. All they have to do is ask.

In light of my opposition here and on Inman News to the now-defunct Agent Scouting Reports, which were canceled shortly after the pilot aired, it might seem like I am dangerously close to making a case for total transparency in agent production numbers. And, in a way, I am. But that “data” that they attempted to publish was inherently and seriously flawed, not to mention a violation of our own MLS terms of use, so it just threatened to become more misinformation.

As this agent and I grumbled about the arguably ethically challenged marketing approaches of some of our colleagues, the overriding theme was, “How can we police our own?” You see, this stuff not only hurts consumers but it tarnishes an entire industry. Unfortunately, too many brokers are too inclined to look the other direction, either because they are unaware or because they are unwilling to shoot themselves in their bottom line foot.

So, all the home buyer or seller has to do is ask. But, as one Scouting Report advocate said:

If the agent tells me, the consumer, that they’ve successfully closed two dozen transactions in my neighborhood representing sellers, and sold the properties for 99% of market and even saved a few stray kittens in the process, I am supposed to take their word for it.”

No, you are supposed to demand verification. To quote myself from my Inman News column:

I give the average consumer more credit than to just take my word for anything today. My own clients don’t believe my opinions of value, my analyses of market trends, or even my representation of the listing inventory without fact-checking across multiple sites and asking 12 friends. Do you really think the majority of consumers are going to retrieve a self-promotional fluff piece from their front porch and give it the full weight of a tablet just delivered from the mountaintop?

True, some might do just that – take any agent-produced spiel on faith. But our world is changing, and so will this. People know that have a big ol’ Internet at their disposal now, and social search has exploded to the point that the checks and balances of validation among our spheres are the rules, not the exception.

If you are among the growing number of enlightened consumers who want the truth and not just hype, here is my own little consumer alert. The stoopid agent tricks in real estate marketing generally, at least in my area, come in three forms:

• Intentionally vague, unquantifiable statements. Take, “No ‘ONE’ sells more homes in your neighborhood.” Watch out for words in quotes. That is code for “I can’t really prove it and don’t really mean it. It’s a figure of speech, and I can’t be sued for it.”  Another personal favorite is the self-anointed, meaningless title, like “Top Agent in Client Loyalty.” Really? How, exactly, did we come to this conclusion? “Neighborhood Specialist?” Puleese. Get in line.

• Quantifiable statements that simply aren’t untrue. “We sell more homes than anyone in the Delta Quadrant!” In this case, they may, but you should confirm. Ask for the unadulterated, ugly MLS printout demonstrating as much. I give our own information to our would-be clients all of the time, and they can see my search parameters right at the bottom so there is no mystery. And beware of the quantifiable statement that comes with too much caveat baggage. “We have sold more homes that closed on a Tuesday than any other husband and wife team with two children in your zip code in the last fifteen years, but only it you consider the last fifteen years collectively, because most of the agents in our market weren’t yet licensed back then or were working in Boise at the time.”

• Lots of pretty pictures of lots of pretty homes. As I discussed the whole truth in advertising issue with my fellow agent, we were both in possession of the same door dropping showing a collection of “available” and “sold” properties. In the case of most of these home, the agent responsible for the piece was not the listing agent or the buyer’s agent – had never even come within twelve blocks of the homes, except perhaps when he waltzed through during the broker caravan. Presumably, the agent had gotten permission to “advertise for free” the listings of several other, out of area agents. Unfortunately, this little detail was omitted from the fine print, leaving the recipient with the impression that he was in fact the “Neighborhood Specialist.” And I am certain it made the phone ring. That was, after all, the point.

My point is two-fold. Many of us do care about ethics and the integrity of the industry. We do respect ourselves and our customers too much to mislead and misrepresent ourselves into a place at your dining room table. Others, sadly, do not. But, you owe it to yourself to be an informed consumer and know the difference.

Ask the tough questions. Demand supporting documentation. Be inquisitive and, yes, be a little skeptical. And do your own homework. Whether it is through your social network or through your search box, research the agent in question and their body of work. The good agents have large digital footprints that will give you many clues to help solve the mystery.

Freshly back from our Berg Bicentennial Vacation, I was catching up on some reading when I stumbled upon an article titled “Seven Ways to Make Your Home Safer.” Now, I’m not generally one to be critical of Zillow (insert sarcasm here), and in all fairness, they were talking about burgler-proofing, but they missed a very important home safety tip.

Do not place a rather large gathering of empty suitcases at the top of the stairs if you intend to wander out into the darkness at 2:00 am in a jet-lagged stupor in an attempt to navigate said stairs.

That would be Steve, who coincidentally is the genius who thought the top of the stairs to be the ideal luggage staging area. Fortunately, he was able to right himself somewhere midway between slightly scathed and dead as a doornail. After a brief episode involving cursing like a drunken sailor and blaming the me, the dog, and Samsonite (in that order), he realized he would live to close another escrow, even if his days as a leg model were over.

And this brings us to my most logical segue. Determining home value is some science but a lot more art. (Okay, there is no nexus whatsoever between home pricing and our health insurance deductable, save the fact that the magnitude of the numbers is eerily similar, but it’s the best I can do this morning given that I’m still running on Caribbean time.)

Agent Extraordinaire John Lowe of San Diego Castles Realty fame made a presentation at a recent office meeting in which he shared a big, scary pricing analysis. It’s scary because it has lots of bars and lines and data points. (For our three readers, John is notorious for analyzing the daylights out of stuff, and we love him for this. He’s got spreadsheets, and he’s not afraid to use them.)

What he did was look at sale prices over the past six months in Scripps Ranch. (Data courtesy of the Sandicor MLS, detached homes in the 92131 Zip code, information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed, blah, blah, blah.) And here is what he found:

Scripps Ranch SF Analysis 10/11

The red bars represent the square footages of each of the sold properties for the six-month period ending on whatever day our office meeting was last month, while the black and red lines represent the smoothed and linear trend lines for price per square foot. So far, so good. We see what we would expect, which is price per square foot dropping as the size of the home increases. (This is because the biggest component of price is the price of the dirt, not the box built atop, and lot size doesn’t vary much in our area.)

In theory, one should be able to use this graph to estimate that value of their Scripps Ranch Home. Find your square footage on the left, y axis, and move to the right until you intersect the pretty little black or red lines. Voila! Your value! Think of it as the John Lowe equivalent of Zillow’s Zestimate; we’ll call it a LoweValuation. But much like the Zestimate, the LoweValuation is a left-brain approach to a right-brain problem. Every home is different, and the things that are arguably the biggest influencers of market value aren’t the dry, vital statistics.

Sure, size matters. But things like view, location, interior appointments, nature of the sale, and so on can’t possibly be accurately represented in a fancy algorithm or an Excel spreadsheet. You can’t model emotional triggers.

Just look at the individual data points, and you will see that there are wide swings in value among individual homes in similar size brackets. The art form, therefore, is determining whether your home is special (that dot above the trend line) or a little less so (falling below the trend).  This is where (self-serving alert) an agent knowledgeable about and actively engaged in your market can help.

By the way, this was precisely John’s point when he shared his handy work. Statistics are fabulous. They are oh-so helpful in understanding macro trends and the state of a market. But these statistics and the valuation models they spawn – whether they be served up by Zillow, Case-Shiller, or our own Mr. Lowe – should never be considered in a vacuum. Your home is unique, and your mileage will vary.

photo credit: Solo, with others

There is a lot of free real estate advice out there, and sometimes you get what you pay for.

It’s becoming more commonplace for our clients to turn to the Google God throughout the process to either seek elusive answers (“My home has been on the market for seven hours. Why hasn’t it sold?”), or to just make sure we are doing our jobs.  I’m all for checks and balances, but trust is becoming a four-letter word.

The problem is, you can’t always trust the search box. There is some very good information out there, to be sure, but there is just as much horse doodie being spewed that ranges from silly, to wrong, to outright dangerous. My Golden Retriever, the one with one functioning brain cell who eats rocks, could publish a real estate how-to article if he had opposable thumbs, and someone, somewhere would be waving it around as the smoking gun of his own agent’s incompetence.

I found myself again shaking my head when I heard that a client had latched onto this helpful article penned in 2008 and published on MSNBC.com as the final authority on how to “dump” a house “fast.”

Granted, the article dates back a few years, but not much has changed when it comes to marketing a home. Certainly, the general vibe of the market is not measurably different. So, I thought it would be fun to revisit this little public service checklist of yore (“yore” being 2008-ish), particularly given that we were bopped over our heads with it this week, and offer my own annotations.

Let’s start with the Five Biggest Mistakes.

Making small price reductions again and again. I’ll agree with this one. But, the article goes on to say, “Find out what your house is worth by looking at similar properties in the neighborhood and price it 10% below them.” 10%? Why not 7 or 12%? How about this for a novel idea? Find out what similar properties have sold for, determine a probable market value and sale price, and price your home very close to that probable price. If it’s priced right to begin with, we wouldn’t even be talking about reductions.

Hiring the wrong broker. No argument here. But the author goes on to say, “Personal recommendations from friends and colleagues are often the best way to go. If someone outside the real estate business with nothing to gain is bringing up a broker, you can be pretty sure you’re on to a winner.” (Emphasis added.)

A “winner?” Maybe, but not necessarily. Take those recommendations, and then conduct your own interviews and due diligence. Different folks have different personalities and unique expectations. I like my friends very much, but some of their friends, people they really like, are nut jobs.

Waiting it out. This is mostly correct. But, again, I must offer a big old maybe, maybe not. It depends on your particular circumstances. The one thing I can say with relative certainty where today’s market is concerned is that, if you are waiting for prices to be measurably higher, you need to be prepared to hunker down for a long time.

Showing your house before you get rid of your clutter. Duh. I’ll concede this one.

Not taking the first quick bid. The first offer is often the best, but not always. I suppose it depends on what the offer is, no?

Now here’s the fun part – the tactics for luring more buyers. I’ll focus on my favorites.

Rent a wide-angle lens ($24 to rent for three days). Forgetting for a minute that we don’t rent anything (except Eric, a professional photographer who knows far more about this stuff then we do), we are told that a wide-angle lens will make your home look “larger.” The problem is that buyers get really testy when they walk into a cracker box yet, based on the photos, were expecting a scale model of the Capitol rotunda.

Sell your house on eBay. Oh, yeah. That works. And on Craigslist and in the PennySaver.

Organize a neighborhood open house.  “Include a latte cart or a giant inflatable house in the backyard for kids to jump on.” I can’t tell you how many clients have said, “We would have bought that home if they had only had Venti Mochas!” As for the inflatable, that’s fun. Just don’t forget to renew the umbrella policy.

Include a financial goody bag for the buyer. “You can… pay for a year of landscaping, pool cleaning or maid service. Be creative and see what kind of incentives you think would entice a buyer.”

I’ve got one! What about setting a reasonable price? It’s so crazy, it just might work. “I know we are priced 40% higher than other homes in the neighborhood, but we have lattes and a bouncy thing. And we’ll pay for your next oil change!” doesn’t seem overly compelling to me, but I could be wrong.

Offer a big broker incentive. “Consider offering your broker a weekend in Paris or a luxurious day at the spa.” Hey, now we’re talking! Because I might not do my job just for the promise of, say, our agreed-upon compensation.

Rent a local billboard in your neighborhood. Uh, yeah. That makes sense in suburban San Diego.

The author continues, “You could also create magnets for your car to advertise your home (with house picture and contact information). Or dress your kids and their friends in “Buy My House” T-shirts and send them to town. Sometimes whacky tactics like these pay off.” Trust me, do these things and you will not only find yourself friendless, but childless. If you can get your children and their friends to wear “Buy My House” T-shirts, I want pictures, and rest assured you won’t be buying any prom dresses. And if you find yourself toodling around town with promotional car magnets on your minivan, call me. You are dangerously close to an exciting career in real estate.

From my inbox to you:

San Diego’s four Association of REALTORS® and Sandicor are excited to announce the release of a new consumer website! This website is designed to turn the consumer’s focus back to Brokers and Agents and away from third party sites such as Zillow and Trulia that rank among the top 20 websites in the category of San Diego real estate.

First, I will say that this is a step in the right direction. Everyone and their uncle have been displaying (read: monetizing) the data for consumer consumption for years – except the owner of the data, our MLS. So conceding that the ol’ cat is out of the bag and finally offering of a consumer-facing search portal is long overdue, the first step in a healthy 12-step program.

Here’s where they got it wrong.

This site can’t compete, at least not in its present form. It can’t be a category killer for two reasons: Data displayed is only a subset of homes for sale (San Diego County); and it lacks depth.

I’ll get to the former, subset, issue in a moment. Where the latter is concerned, this could be easily addressed if our MLS and local REALTOR® associations were willing. But are they?

As it stands, this site offers no more than any agent or broker site with an IDX (Internet Data Exchange) solution, mine included. So the consumer can search “unbiased, timely and comprehensive” MLS data on my site. Unless you provide something more, something different, this is neither a blockbuster opportunity for the customer nor is it a “tremendous benefit” to me. In fact, it will only serve to drive local traffic away from my site, as I am fairly sure my MLS will ultimately beat me in an SEO thumb war.

So, be different, and maybe over time this industry-sponsored offering will morph into something more robust. If all the consumer wanted was a list of homes for sale and a couple of links to school and chamber of commerce sites, I would be retired. What they want is the rest of the story, ala Redfin.  These are the things I would like to see because, heck, you can do it. The data is yours!

• Property histories – Instead of showing just the CliffsNotes on active listings, show sale histories for these properties. Allow folks to search in all categories – active, pending, contingent and sold. Throw in the tax records if you dare; these are public records, after all. In short, lay it out there. Others are.
• Agent information – Fine, so your members would tar and feather you if you even hinted at displaying their production numbers. And on the cusp of the Agent Scouting Reports debacle, we know that getting the numbers right is next to impossible. But, simply offering a search-by-name roster is meaningless and a waste of real estate on the site. How about at least showing “Member since…” next to the agents’ names? At a minimum, consumers would know how long an agent has been around these parts.
• Statistics – Again, let me remind you that you’ve got the data. Use it! This has long been a beef of mine, the fact that I can’t use the MLS to compile any reasonable statistical analysis or download customized market trend information for my clients, at least not without a lot of sweat, time spent in the profanity zone, and spreadsheet gymnastics. So, I am left to go to third parties for the information, third parties who get the data from you, manipulate it, and sell it back to me. If one of your goals is truly to “Lead to a reduction in the fees paid by Brokers for participation in national third party sites,” then let’s start here. If you won’t do it for me, then do it for the customer.
• Listing display – You can do better. For starters, include the agent “supplements.” Have you noticed how so many of the remarks say “See Supplement?” That is because the supplement is the place where we have the opportunity to spew a glorious 1896 characters describing the home. Think of the remarks as the headline and the supplement as the story. (This is admittedly a minor nit in the scheme of things, but it has long been my nit.)

There is more, of course, if I wanted to think that hard this morning. But I am going to stick with my story that this is a good idea poorly executed. And I will cut Sandicor and our associations some slack, given that this is (I hope) still in Beta.

My real agitation, or maybe discontent is a better word, is with the rhetoric in the big unveil I received.  As explained by Sandicor, these are some of the “benefits for brokers and agents” that will result:

Facilitate a consumer’s search for San Diego County real estate information and properties. Sorry to be the one to break the news, but they can already do this.

Allow the consumer to find an agent using a name, affiliated office or location. I don’t see a list of thousands of names absent any context being a big help to anyone.

Permit county-wide Open House searches. This is not new. Have you checked out Redfin lately?

Provide valuable Community Data. Just make sure it is more “valuable” than they can get on dozens of other (gasp) third party sites.

Provide links to helpful information such as Population Statistics, School Systems, and Government Resources. Been there, done that.

This is admittedly all minutia.  So there’s nothing new here. So what? Turning the MLS front-facing is an idea whose time long ago came.  But, these last two objectives suggest that either our leaders are seriously delusional or it is propaganda intended to sell the agents on the idea.

Lead to a reduction in the fees paid by Brokers for participation in national third party sites, and Drive traffic back to brokers and agents and away from third party sites like Trulia and Zillow.

Neither will happen. Don’t kid yourselves. The issue of incomplete data, incomplete in the sense that the site necessarily only displays San Diego County properties, is arguably the biggest reason why. That, and the fact that while you are running a local MLS, others are out there securing and spending venture capital and IPO-ing their way into the hearts and search boxes of the consumer on a national level and providing a richer consumer experience to boot.

I continue to hold that this was a great idea, but it is a great idea that should be implemented on a larger stage. It’s not Sandicor’s fault that they can’t. If my member organizations really wanted to “drive traffic back” and “lead to a reduction in fees,” the effort needs to start with NAR.

Remember Realtor.com? The official site of the National Association of Realtors? That’s where this play should be occurring — without charging agents for enhanced listings and side bar ads, without forcing me to pay an evil third-party site (my site) to redeem my listings and drive traffic back home.

Until that happens, all Sandicor’s consumer site will likely accomplish is to clip the wings of any member agents with a respectable digital footprint by effectively competing for local traffic.

This is the trend for inventory of Scripps Ranch homes for sale (Altos Research, 92131 Zip code). It’s ugly.

It’s ugly, that is, if you are a buyer.

I was reminded that it might be time to touch on the little empty shelf syndrome we are currently experiencing when I found myself, yesterday, at the weekly Scripps Ranch broker pitch session. The pitch session is a long-standing tradition in many communities, Scripps included, where agents from all offices gather to network and promote their new listings.

Now, I’ve been a bit of a negative Nellie about the pitch session in recent years, having long argued that this relic of the good ol’ days has essentially been relegated obsolete by things like, oh, the Internet. It seems rather goofy to stand in front of a rather insignificant subset of the Realtor population (insignificant in terms of numbers) and as many vendors – Title reps, loan officers, home stagers and others who will never bring a buyer to one of my transactions but would very much like to earn my business – and read from the MLS. Yet we do this, week in and out, because old habits die hard.

As this week’s meeting wrapped and we were swapping idle banter before hitting our Realtor mobiles to visit the newest offerings, it struck me that our current market may be serving to validate, at least temporarily, this industry throwback to the simpler days of water cooler back slapping. I watched as several informal discussions were taking place around the room between agents. Some had buyer needs, others had upcoming listings, and all were dealing from their respective decks in a real estate game of “Go Fish,” attempting to make that all-important match.

Here’s why. In Scripps Ranch this morning, there are 62 active detached listings. That’s it. 62. Consider that in the context of approximately 8,000 detached homes standing and in the context of a “normal” inventory of listings being approximately double what we have today. It’s slim pickings.

By the numbers:

Traditional sales = 44
Short sales = 11
Bank-owned homes = 7
Average days on market = 75 days*
Median price = Approximately $725,000**

* This is fakey days on market, because so many of these have changed agents or otherwise relisted and, therefore, enjoyed an opportunity to reset the old odometer. The real average is actually longer.

** “Approximately,” because of a stupid value range price that, in this market, no one understands and makes little sense.

So, these days, the more tenacious agents are left to their own devices to try to make choices materialize for their buyer clients. And, sometimes, it works. Twice in the past two months, agents from our own little shop found a matched pair, pre-MLS, to the delight of both parties to the transaction.

And, yesterday, I found myself engaged in one of those little card games with two other agents. One had an unmet buyer need, another had a client who was preparing to sell a home that met their criteria but needed to find a replacement home, and I had a home currently being staged to debut next week that sounded like a fit for the middle man. The first agent called it a possible trifecta. Or maybe it is a hat trick – depends on your sport.

As a result, two showings have been scheduled. It may work; it probably won’t. But, crazier things have been known to happen, and desperate times call for desperate measures. The moral to the story is that there are buyers out there. Listings? Not so much.  And to all those folks who ask if they would be better off to wait until after the holidays to list, just remember that the new year will bring with it new buyers but, also, more competition. If you do hold off, at least make sure your agent is stumping for you in the meantime.

Automation can be a beautiful thing. It can streamline your business and make you more efficient, freeing up valuable time for less mundane tasks — like automating other stuff.

Automation can also be the devil incarnate (incarnate, if you consider a computer to be a human being, which I do).  The problem is that once we automate a task, we tend to write that task off as having been accomplished. No need to worry about that “thing” anymore! It happens all by itself.

The problem is that, even when you delegate, some continued involvement is still required. Transaction coordinators and self-cleaning ovens come to mind.

Let’s start with the self-cleaning oven. There is no such thing. I demonstrated as much this past Sunday. It started innocently enough, with a certain husband who we shall call “Steve” (maybe not his real name).  “Steve,” the one who wouldn’t know dirt if he was riding shotgun in a backhoe, suddenly recognized that our oven didn’t look like other ovens in the ‘hood.

Eleven years of culinary disasters had done a number on the old guy. (I’m talking about the oven here, but I could just as easily be talking about Steve.) Sunday, apparently, the charred remains of a decade’s worth of pizzas and briskets, not to mention one unfortunate exploding potato mishap, reached Defcon 1 status in his mind. It was then that he eyed the magic “self-cleaning” display. “Let’s do that!” he squealed.

Now, we all know that “Let’s do that” is marriage code for “You do that while I watch the Charger game.” So I dutifully pushed the magic button. Then I waited while the internal temperature equaled that of the surface of Mercury, the oven cooled, and the oven unlocked, a process that took me well into the third quarter. And after I spent the next two hours, four sponges and one can of Bar Keeper’s Friend scrubbing the bowels of the Staphylococcus chamber, voila! The oven had self-cleaned.

The truth is that nothing in life can be entirely automated, except perhaps Ryan Seacrest, which brings me to my current beef. It has become all the rage for real estate listing agents to rely on automation for showing feedback. Adding to the popularity is the fact that our real estate association now offers an automated feedback service as a free member benefit, with the “free” part being the operative. If our Association of Realtors offered free spinal taps, I guarantee you there would be a shirtless line out the door.

The problem with automating the feedback process is three-fold.

1. It is spam
2. It still requires some human intervention
3. It is spam

I shall offer as Exhibit A the feedback request I received yesterday. The email included the standard language. “Please provide feedback by clicking here or by going to the link below to answer a few quick questions. It will take less than a minute and my seller and I appreciate the courtesy and I will gladly return the favor for your listings.”  Now, I can forgive the run-on sentence. Hey, who’s perfect? What I can’t forgive is this. While I had indeed shown this home on multiple occasions, and while my clients did in fact like the home very much, they liked it so much that they are closing escrow on it today.

This is where the spam part comes in. I get these nonsensical queries all of the time, three days after I have already spoken to the agent about my client’s interest level or, as in this case, three months after my client’s offer was accepted. It happens so often that I now simply hit the delete key without processing.

If an agent isn’t paying enough attention to monitor their automated systems (and to turn the darn things off when it makes sense to do so), I wonder how much time they are spending monitoring the responses and exercising a little agency on the client’s behalf. I suspect that as I write this, some agent somewhere is sitting in a listing appointment using this very hip and now duty delegator as a valuable selling tool. For the love of leftovers, don’t buy it! You are hiring an agent to use their noggin and to work for you. One personal, conversational email or, dare I say, phone call is going to be infinitely more effective than a thoughtless, often unmanned robo-message.

In my latest installment of “What’s wrong with people?” I shall revisit the popular rental scam.

Rental scams are nothing new. We began seeing them on Craigslist years ago. This is how it goes. Some despicable person, one who presumably finds that holding down a real job or otherwise being a productive member of society is just too much trouble, decides to instead steal. They find a home for sale online, and they pirate the photos and text. Next they find the name of the owner in public records and set up a bogus email account that might suggest they are the owner, something like gregjones77@yahoo.com. (My apologies to Mr. Jones if this is, in fact, his real email address. Just in case, let’s refrain from sending him messages this morning like “Kris wrote about you on her blog, you scum bucket!”)

Then, and this is the really good part, they take this home for sale and post it as a too-good-to-be-true rental. The monthly rent is always something exceptionally enticing like, say, five dollars — including utilities. When contacted, the “owner” will usually say that they live out of the country but will arrange for a friend to show it when they get a deposit. They will always ask for payment by cashier’s check or wire transfer.

Alert would-be renter Christina forwarded this email she received from one such pond scummy person on one of our listings:

Hello,

My home is still available for rent, We are renting this home to a responsible and neat individual or family who will treat the house as his or her own. Well,Our house has been put up for sale until my wife advised me to put it out for rent. My home has 4 Bedrooms 3 full, 1 partial Bathrooms , while the size is 2,425 sqft. I am asking $1,300 while the refundable security deposit is $1,300. Pets are also allowed. How soon are you willing to move in if we finalize arrangements with you now?

At least he blamed his wife and didn’t kill me off. Unfortunately, Josh Taylor, a Tennessee agent, met a untimely virtual death.

Last week, two of our own listings were scraped for fun and profit. In one case, our client found himself arguing with the showing agent, an agent who had seen both our online listing and the bogus rental listing on the same site (Trulia) and insisted that her client could lease the place if he wanted. The Internets don’t lie!

In the second instance, my client found a highway patrolman at his door. An upstanding citizen who neither speeds nor knocks off banks in his spare time, he was a little taken aback, until he realized that the police officer was just looking for a place to rent – for five dollars a month.

The thing about the rental scammers is that they are evolving. Where we used to only have to worry about Craigslist, now they use listing syndication services to victimize across multiple sites. In the case of our recent evil-doers, Postlets (powered by Zillow) was their syndication service of choice. In Zillow’s defense (Did I just say that?), they swiftly pulled the listings once I reported them as fraudulent. But I simply don’t have the time to police all of our listings every day, and these rental listings will likely reemerge tomorrow under new phoney accounts.

Phoenix guy, Jay Thompson, had a fabulously funny exchange with a rental scammer. I filed that one under “Things I wish I had thought of,” but the reality is I am too lazy to set up a non-traceable email account. I’m glad Jay is around to do my dirty work.

The reach afforded by our online world is a double-edged sword. It is both glorious and an opportunity for abuse, which I suppose describes most wonderful things in life – like those little white chocolate sugar cookies they sell at Trader Joe’s. So, please, use a little common sense when doing your online rental shopping. Only deal with folks you meet in person, people who will show you the big ticket item before demanding you commit. Never send cash or the equivalent. And always do a little cross-checking to confirm that the listing agent is really dead before pulling your own trigger.

At our recent year-end office meeting, we again gave our little State of the Real Estate Market address to our agents. We basically copied and pasted last year's summary — and the summary from the year before. As much as I am a fan of manufacturing drama, I feel a little like Sean Kingston with my iPod stuck on replay-ay-ay.

It's a question we get every single time we meet with a prospective seller. "If we wait — maybe we rent for awhile — how long will it be before prices are better?" they ask anxiously. The only difference is the homeowner's definition of "better." Sometimes, they want to hold out for only slightly better, while other times they are ready to hunker down until we return to the 2005 pricing glory days.

The latter is the easy one. If you are waiting for a return to peak values, go ahead and rent but with the expectation that your children will inherit a nice investment property. "Slightly better" is a little more complicated. If you believe the smart economists in dark suits (and I generally do), we are seeing signs of pricing stability, at least in San Diego. We are seeing the more affordable homes enjoy a bit of price creep, yet we are continuing to see some downward pressure in the higher priced segments. Until we clear out the troubled inventory, we will be bouncing around the valley floor. Think three to five years.

We have been noticing signs of more realistic expectations by both buyers and sellers; the value perception disconnect is slowly closing. But we aren't there yet.

I originally posted this insanely helpful infographic in late 2008 illustrating the buyer pool for any given listing using Dabbleboard. It is eerily as relevant today as it was over three years ago, except that the bubble on the right is relatively larger. And there will be a few more folks in the middle now — folks interested in your home but who still can't get financing. So, in the spirit of regifting, let's revisit what buyers are looking for.

_______

Without further ado, I bring you my Venn Diagram illustrating why homes are taking a wee bit longer to sell. It's a little complicated, as evidenced by the 5 minutes it took me to design it, so do hang in there.

Dislcaimer: Your results may vary. Margin of error = 100%. Patent pending. Use only as directed.

photo credit: josip2

Steve’s cell phone is on life support. First let me say that this comes as no surprise to the Berg nuclear family. He has a history of killing electronics.

In the early days, the cause of death could be easily established. When one falls into the spa with ones cell phone in his pocket, one will no longer be able to utilize the device for anything but a paperweight. There’s not enough white rice at a wedding to save a waterlogged Droid. Trust me.

Over time, however, his stuff just started checking for no obvious reason – so often, in fact, that you will find his picture at the counter of your nearest Verizon store. I believe he also enjoys the Customer of the Month parking space at Best Buy.

This is why I recently found myself killing time in Columbia, Missouri playing Fruit Ninja. Steve’s current phone, one that used to allow him to do all sorts of whiz-bang things — like receive emails and texts – has been relegated to no more than a simple talking device with a seven minute battery life. So while he purchased a stopgap car charger, I idled at the iPhone display killing fruit.

For the unfamiliar, it’s a goofy little game, this Fruit Ninja. As pomegranates and kiwi fly across the screen, you have to slice them without detonating bombs. More fruit means more points. Like any respectable game, it gets harder as you progress –to the point where passers-by, noticing your glazed eyes and spastic swiping movements, routinely assume that you are enjoying a day pass from the Happy Acres sanitarium.

Ultimately it’s just a time sucking exercise in futility, because you can never “win.” You may be momentarily entertained and even find yourself occasionally puffed with pride over your fruit salad-making awesomeness. Eventually, though, you will explode; it’s all about personal bests.

Ninja fruit is not a zero sum game. When I lose, someone else isn’t winning. Put another way, my success is not measured in the context of another’s failure. So goes real estate.

There remains this pervasive notion that one side of the transaction – the buyer or the seller – is going to become the victor. Buyers refer to these transactions as “smoking deals;” sellers tend to see it as getting “top dollar.” The reality is this: You will buy a home, or sell a home, for market value.

I have written about this before, the concept of market value. Market value is actually a range of value, because different people are, dare I say, different. For every person who wants a pool I can show you one that won’t even consider a home with a pool. One man’s wall paper is another man’s Sienna Sand paint palate; granite versus tile or Pergo instead of Berber – I can tell you on which side of these debates you will find your largest buyer pools, but the buyer who ultimately makes the offer is the “market,” at least at that moment.

As a seller, you may find that the market value of your home isn’t aligned with your expectations. That is not to say, however, that the buyer is winning and you are losing. It just is what it is, and I swear I am going to put that on a T-shirt someday.

If your home is on the market and you are not being shown, or if you have not received what you consider to be an acceptable offer, one of two things is going on. Your property is not being widely exposed and compellingly presented, or your pricing is out of whack. That’s all, folks. Sure, selling a home is a process, not an event, but consider the average market times in your area.

In Scripps Ranch, the average market time of detached home sold in December was 66 days. It was 61 days in November. Active detached listings, however, have been on the market for an average of 81 days. Give it time, of course, but at some point the market may be telling you something.

Now let’s take our places at the buyer side of the game board. We all want a smoking deal. If you don’t believe me, you weren’t looking for a parking space on Black Friday. But think about the holiday buying season. There were the occasional too-good-to-be-true sales – the sales involving “one in stock.” As a home buyer, you might encounter one of these offerings too, but be prepared for the pepper spray, because you won’t be the only one waving your checkbook in the air, and you will probably leave battered and empty handed.

What mostly happened on Black Friday was that retailers priced the products to position themselves favorably relative to their competition. They were focused on attracting the most buyers from the finite buyer pool, and while their events were promoted as “sales,” they weren’t really sales at all. That’s because when everything is price reduced, you’ve simply established a market. Pricing is inextricably linked to supply and demand; it is a response to current economic conditions.  This holds true whether we are talking about cashmere sweaters or homes.

Still don’t believe me that Black Friday was not brimming with “bargains?” Look at prices for those same retailers and for those same products today. The “sales” are still in effect. In many cases, in fact, prices are lower yet. If I can buy the same purse at a dozen different stores for the same discounted price, it is not discounted at all — unless my basis of comparison is 2004.

As a buyer, then, prices are what they are – today. That’s not to say that there isn’t room to negotiate. Of course there is. Depending on the seller’s needs and motivation, certain terms (like timing, financing and all those little contingency sticking points) may have value to the seller and may translate to a lower price. But it’s still not a zero sum game. There is give and take and, hopefully, a lot of what we call “dealing in good faith.” In most successful transactions, both parties ultimately benefit.

I see too many buyers playing to beat the seller instead of playing for a personal best. They take the asking price and offer 10 or 20% less, not because this seems like a fair price, but because it seems like a victory. Much like the sellers whose homes have languished on the market for too long, these buyers languish in the market for too long, firing too many blanks and missing too many opportunities.

 The moral, I suppose, is this: Know the market. And I don’t mean the Case-Shiller macro-portrayal, but your market in your ‘hood. Your agent can help you with this. Know what your goals are and try to reach – even exceed — them. Your agent can help with this also. You aren’t buying a pair of shoes; don’t rush things.  But at the same time, remember against whom you are playing. It’s not the other party to the transaction. And if you keep missing your targets, you might just be playing against yourself.

photo credit: 401K

A big hat tip to San Diego Castles Realty agent Sasha Harvey (who apparently reads the Orange County Register) for the link to this bit of bad news for homeowners blessed a Mello Roos assessment.

From the Orange County Register article:

Beginning with the 2012 tax bill (the one due in April 2013), the state Franchise Tax Board will require property owners to break down their property taxes into deductible and non-deductible portions.

That means property owners who have been deducting their Mello-Roos fees — often running into thousands of dollars — will no longer be able to deduct those or any other special assessments like vector control or mosquito abatement.

I am not an attorney or tax dude. Having said that, it has sort of been conventional wisdom to date that while Mello Roos is not "strictly speaking" tax deductable, it conveniently shows up on the property tax bill so, hey! It's deductable by association. No longer.

(Did I mention that I'm not an attorney or CPA? You should consult one of those guys before you go taking tax advice from me or the Orange County Register — just to be safe.)

I just returned from my semi-annual pilgrimage to the Inman News Real Estate Connect conference. Defying logic and laughing in the face of all that is good and decent, the event planners decided years ago that the January installment should be held in New York City. And each year I am reminded why New York is the “City that never sleeps.” That’s because they have to keep moving lest they freeze to death.

Truthfully, this year I lucked out, as they were having a bit of a warm front. I generally enjoyed balmy 40-degree weather. And it’s a good thing, because I was pulling double duty. Not only was I there to do a little panel moderating and to keep abreast of the latest business and technology trends in real estate – all within the warm confines of the conference venue – but I was also the advance party for my daughter’s own Manhattan Project.

My oldest daughter relocated to the big city yesterday, one day after I returned, for an editorial gig at New York Magazine. Through luck of timing, I was charged with leading the reconnaissance mission to meet the new roommate and attend to a few last minute details. Let me tell you that nothing says fun like hauling an end table five blocks through Chelsea in casual business attire and four inch heels.

First let me say on a minor real estate note that, despite the warnings, you really can use Craigslist to find rentals. But you have to do your homework. Trust no one.

Her new home was in fact secured from a Craigslist ad, site unseen, and she did send money in advance. This, however, occurred after a joint forensic investigation of the neighborhood, the property and (most importantly) the landlord that left us knowing more about this poor, unsuspecting coop owner than she knows about herself.

Thanks to the power of the search box, we knew how old she was, where she was born, where her parents live, her familial status, employment history, and even the fact that she contributed $200 in 1993 to the Bush-Cheney campaign. (Admittedly, this last one might have been a deal breaker for some, but if you really need a place to live, you must be willing make some compromises.)

The point is this. Whether you are looking for a rental or a home to purchase, you have nearly unlimited resources at your fingertips which will allow you be entirely informed. From property details to neighborhood culture — and, yes, the profile of the guy who might be sitting at the other side of the negotiating table — you owe it to yourself to do your homework.

It was interesting, then, that I was introduced to a snappy little neighborhood profile site, PicketReport.com.  It’s a tradition at Inman to feature a handful of start-up companies in the real estate space – as they call them, “New Kids on the Block.” I love this site. The screen shot above shows their neighborhood information for Scripps Ranch.

It’s in Beta, which means there are still some glitches. For instance, if you are familiar with Scripps Ranch, you will note that the Middle School that was relocated several years ago is still plotted in its former location, as is the elementary school that took over their lease. Oh, and then there is the lifestyle profile for my 92131 Zip code that, apparently, consists of “flourishing families.” Flourishing families are defined as “affluent, middle-aged families and couples earning prosperous incomes and living very comfortable, active lifestyles.”

I am relatively comfortable, writing this in my jeans and sneakers, and I do happen to fall into the “families and couples” category. The prosperous, active and middle-aged parts, however, are subject to some serious debate.

I sure wish I had known about this site prior to moving my daughter to Chelsea. By comparison, I now know that these are my daughter’s people:

Power Elite: The wealthiest households in the US, living in the most exclusive neighborhoods, and enjoying all that life has to offer.

And as I glance at my account balances, I suddenly know this to be true. I think PicketReport.com can safely drop the “Beta” now.

I’m really excited this morning. 

As a little background, I am a proud member of the National Association of Realtors – and the California Association of Realtors and the San Diego Association of Realtors. Forget that I have to be a member if I want access to the MLS. That’s just minutia, and that is certainly not why I choose to pay my dues to each every year. Oh, no.

The point is that my membership is a testament to my agent awesomeness and my commitment to upholding the highest ethical standards. That! Oh, and the fact that I find it helpful to have access to show instructions or to be able to upload a listing when need be.

But it’s mostly about what my membership means. Because, as we all know, only ethical agents can write checks. Only ethical agents can call themselves Realtors (little “r”).

And as if I wasn’t getting my money’s worth before, things have just gotten better. Today I heeded the call to action in my inbox:

California REALTORS® have another way to differentiate themselves and show consumers they maintain a high level of knowledge of the home-buying and selling process and are bound by a strict code of ethics by using the REALTOR® Badge, a free C.A.R. member benefit recently introduced by Real Estate Business Services® Inc. (REBS®).

That’s right. I didn’t have to pay a thing for that badge; it’s free! And those folks at REBS are really something. Not only were they commissioned to create a badge – with embed code and everything – but they delivered!

Why do I need a badge, you might ask? Well, duh. You weren’t paying attention. I need to differentiate myself. I have integrity, dang it. Just look at my badge!

CAR says that “the REALTOR® Badge is an easy way to add value to your reputation and online presence.” And on the badge website (yes, they have their own website), consumers can learn the power of this little guy – as if it isn’t immediately obvious.

You want someone that you can trust. Did you know that a REALTOR® cannot mislead a seller as to the value of the property just to get the listing? REALTORS® cannot accept a rebate or commission without the client's knowledge and consent. And your REALTOR® will submit all offers and counter-offers as quickly and objectively as possible as mandated by the "Code of Ethics."

Wow. That’s powerful. Yet I must ask, can a designation portrayed as a widget really assure all that?

If you are an agent, an exalted Realtor (little “R”), I don’t know about you, but I don’t stay up nights worrying about undesignated licensees perpetrating crimes of negligence and dishonesty against the public. What does bother me is when any licensee is incompetent, negligent, or unethical.  I run into them frequently, and they are always members of NAR; I know this because I see their lockbox keys.

If not for a prominently displayed digital impression, how is the consumer to know that their agent is living up to their obligations? Alas, it is often difficult, if not impossible.

These are just a few of the usual suspects:

• The agent who knowingly took a listing priced obscenely over market value. The seller trusts you to honestly advise. They are looking to you for counsel. The adage about things that are too good to be true is lost on someone who is short on equity or long on hope and far too emotionally connected to be objective. Yes, this agent may ultimately spend time and money on a listing that won’t sell, but just as often we see them ride the tide of price reduction until their “buy a listing” strategy is rewarded with a paycheck.
• The agent who talks smack about other agents to anyone who will listen. Other agents know you are breaching ethics when you do this, but the client will never know. Because ethical agents will never tell the customer that you are a weasel. Ethical agents know that bad mouthing other agents is not only poor form but a violation of both common decency and the Code to which they chose to actually subscribe.
• The agent who makes false claims about experience, abilities and past production. Did your parents not teach you anything? Don’t say you sell more homes in a given area than anyone else when you don’t. Don’t say you have the best marketing plan in the tri-state area and then rush out the door, your first-ever listing contract in hand, to buy a camera and take a Photoshop class. And don’t have your cousin write fictional testimonial letters. These are all real examples, and they all constitute lying. Be honest, and sell your enthusiasm if that’s all you have. We all started somewhere, and your clients just might respect you for it.

The common thread is that these agents are primarily concerned with competing against other agents to get the business, when what they should really be focused on is doing the business.  Once an agent is in your employ, they have a fiduciary duty to place your interests above their own. But even before that, they have a moral obligation to act with honesty and integrity.

The Realtor Code of Ethics Preamble says:

The term REALTOR® has come to connote competency, fairness, and high integrity resulting from adherence to a lofty ideal of moral conduct in business relations. No inducement of profit and no instruction from clients ever can justify departure from this ideal.

OK, that sounds a little silly given the generally reputation of our industry. But if you are going to toss around commemorative virtual plaques, shouldn’t this whole higher ground stuff be at least sort-of true?  I understand that CAR is trying to further the reputation of our ranks (and, perhaps, the reputation of the associations), but just saying so won’t make it so.

Departures can “never be justified,” yet departures we see. And, sadly the customer may never have knowledge because of their own expectations that dealings are honest – because of their expectations that their own best interests are at the center of the real world discussion.

So I guess a little self-policing is in order. To all of the agents who can’t or won’t do the right thing, I hereby call on you to turn in your badges. I’m keeping mine because, every day, I at least try to earn it.

Note: If you are a non-real estate type, you may find this post only mildly interesting; it’s an important topic nonetheless. If you are a real estate type, chances are you have probably already written on the subject. It turns out at least four of my buddies – Jay Thompson, Rob Hahn, Drew Meyers and Jeffrey Douglas — are on the other side of this issue. Et tu, Brutes?)

As reported by Inman News (“Premium” content – sorry), Abbott Realty Group (ARG) recently announced that they will no longer syndicate listings to third-party aggregators. Subsequently, a big ol’ agent food fight ensued. OK, it’s more of a heated debate. But there are definitely two camps in the syndication discussion, and it’s an important one for buyers and seller, as well as agents, to understand. If affects us all.

If you are one of the three people remaining who hasn’t seen Jim Abbott’s video on the subject, here it is:

ARG’s decision followed a similar announcement by Edina Realty back in November. At the core, the arguments against syndication involve two issues: Data integrity and data control.

I’ll start with the issue of data integrity, because that is the simpler of the two. Sites like Trulia, Zillow and Realtor.com – let’s call them the troika – display loads of inaccurate data. There is no argument there. Because many of their listings are manually entered, many are outdated. I can point to numerous examples of homes being displayed as for sale that sold six months, or more, ago. I have seen my own listings entered by other agents as their own. There are foreclosure sites who routinely list homes by street – no address – that are not for sale but simply have had a Notice of Default filed, with the idea that buyers might contact their agents or sign up for there foreclosure listing services.

Some have argued that the likes of the troika do not have a corner on the inaccurate data market – that MLS listings are, too, fraught with errors. And while this is true, MLS errors represent agent input mistakes, oversight, or mere sloppiness. You won’t find double entries or intentional deceptions – or scams.

And then there are the rental scams which not only pose an inconvenience to our clients but present potential security risks. Where Craigslist used to own the rental scam space, we now see our listings appearing on the troika sites as rentals, and this happens nearly every time we list a home.  One of our clients learned that he was our latest victim when the first of a series of would-be renters knocked on his door – this one a Highway Patrolman who caused our elderly client much undo anxiety. Another client learned of the rental posting at the conclusion of a showing and from the showing agent who, having seen the listing on Trulia, was there only to help her client secure a six-month lease.

Absent syndication, would we eliminate rental scams? Of course not. The photos and listing information can be lifted just as easily from my site or any site with an IDX feed. But eliminating the ability for the scammers to do their one-stop shopping will make things a little more difficult.

Let’s talk about the larger issue of control. It’s about our information being hijacked for fun and profit and, yes, we handed them the keys.  It is about extortion. You gave us the car, and now you must pay for the ad, the enhanced positioning or profile, if you ever want to drive the conversation again. We are starting to see what this means for the agents and brokers. What does it mean for the buyers and sellers?

Let me share a story, a story that most agents have no doubt heard before. Our listings are on Realtor.com (no, we haven’t opted out), but we discontinued paying for the “special premium featured titanium agent” package on Realtor.com years ago when the bounty got a little too pricey and, philosophically, we got a little irked. So when I visited the page for one of our listings this week and filled out the contact form for more information, I wasn’t surprised by the outcome.

First we received an auto-generated response ensuring us that our inquiry had been sent to a “local area expert.” The “expert,” I’m sure, is a very fine company. It just happened to be one I had never heard of, with an office twenty miles away, and one who to my knowledge has never sold a home in this particular area. Next came another email informing us that an account had been set up for us on the referral agent’s website (“Our website has every listing in the San Diego area and it is updated daily”).

The next email was short and sweet; it gave us the name of their preferred “partner” lender who was standing by to help with all of our financing needs. It was the fourth and final email that finally hit on the subject at hand. “I have checked the status on this home and it is currently available. It is a traditional sale with no banks involved (like on a short sale or bank owned home). Did you have some particular questions about the home that I can answer for you?”

That’s it. Now with several hours and two pots of coffee separating me from my original query, I have a mortgage broker referral, I have an account on an agent’s IDX site, yet I still don’t have any answers nor have I been offered an opportunity to view the home I have expressed interest in. This is what we call a buyer left behind. The seller’s home was exposed, all right, but had I been a real buyer, the system failed him.

Further, relinquishing control of the conversation surrounding your inventory violates the most basic principle of Real Estate Career 101: The most valuable thing to a real estate agent is a stick in the ground. This is because listings breed listings, listings breed buyers, and listings build reputation. So when we “virtually” hand third party aggregators our body of work that took years and boatloads of money to cultivate, we slowly erode our own future growth potential – unless of course we pay for the opportunity to redirect the fruits of our labors back home.

Defenders of syndication say that an argument against syndication is an argument for dual agency. Nothing could be further from the truth. Much like you can opt out of syndication, you can opt out of dual agency.  Take the call, answer the questions, and then send the buyer to the nearest competing brokerage to view the home and write the offer if that helps you sleep nights. At least by having had the conversation, you haven’t opted out of your role as the champion for that home you signed on to sell, because that would not be in your client’s best interests.

Both Rob Hahn and Jay Thompson pointed out that Internet Data Exchange (IDX) sites like yours, mine, and the sites of every brokerage in the country, are no different than the Troika sites. I don’t agree. The data accuracy issue becomes a relative non-issue where IDX is concerned save the MLS input errors. Even then, the MLS's have procedures in place for policing and ultimately ensuring compliance. More importantly, IDX sites lack the resale component of the troika sites. While an inquiry on my listing may in fact go the agent-owner of another IDX site – and often does – consumers are generally clear on the fact that they are on a particular broker’s or agent’s site. And while some ambiguity may still exist where an IDX site is concerned, they are not simply trying to sell the customer to the highest bidder.

On a larger scale, this is about an industry handing over the car keys. We moan about the flaws in the Zestimates and then we send Zillow the eyeballs. We gripe about how Trulia and the likes are using our data to redirect our customer contact opportunities (what some agents might call “leads”) and spawn their own IPO’s, yet we continue to click the submit button. We lament the fact that buyers are confused and that the best interests of buyers and sellers alike are not necessarily served by the pay-to-play lead generation model. We defend syndication by saying that our sellers demand it, but our clients in fact look to us to explain what works and doesn’t in marketing their home. If you don’t believe this, then ask yourself when the last time was that you promoted your extensive newspaper advertising program to a would-be seller. Just because it is “free” does not make it a beneficial marketing strategy.

Sure, some sellers may not get it, and therein is the conundrum for both the agent and the brokerage. That’s also the genesis of our fear, our inaction, and our continuing down this dangerous road.

You see, my client’s home does not really need to be on 400 national websites. That is just a myth we have propagated out of convenience and our desire to win listings. It is rhetoric we bought into, rhetoric delivered by those who are in the business of profiting from our business. My client’s home does need to be in the MLS, because it is through that platform of broker cooperation that the overwhelming majority of sales still take place. Of course, through the miracles of IDX, my client’s home will still be exposed far and wide on sites other than the MLS and my own. But those sites are owned and operated by other agents and brokers, not by those who are in business to repurpose and profit from my efforts.

When Brad Inman opened the New York Real Estate Connect conference with a clip from the movie “Network” in which the news anchor shouts, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore,” he was talking about prevailing consumer attitudes in our “cottage economy.” It will take this same kind of outrage within our industry to reverse this trend toward putting distance between our customers and us. Taken to the extreme, this road could be leading toward a destination of disintermediation. In its more basic form, it is a flawed delivery system that benefits neither the customer nor the real estate community.

And it will take more than one ARG with 25 agents or even an Edina Realty with 2100 agents. One little San Diego Castles Realty with 11 agents would most certainly go unnoticed. But, I suppose, that is how big changes start – with little ripples. I, for one, applaud ARG’s move. It was bold and, in my opinion, it was right.

The problem with not having all of the facts is that you can end up feeling pretty stupid. And for the record, Steve is wearing an "I'm With Stupid" t-shirt as we speak. (Also, for the record, he rarely has occassion to change out of it.)

When I first heard that our Sandicor MLS was going to be adding an “advertising remarks” field to our listing input forms, I silently criticized them of being all-over-the-place-inconsistent.

First, here is the idea. Beginning this week, when agents input listings in the MLS, they will now be able to include advertising remarks — remarks like, "Hey! Look over here! I'm the listing agent, and here is my phone number and website address!"  These remarks will in turn be included in the listing feed provided to third-party syndication sites (think Zillow and Trulia), should agents opt-into syndication.

Now, I get that this is a good thing in at least one respect; it means the right guy just might have a fighting chance of being picked out of a line-up on third-party sites as the one who is actually representing the property owner. This is in fact one of the many arguments against syndication — that the agent or brokerage providing the data lost in a sea of competing agent advertisements or worse. Listing agent information is absent altogether.

But the very idea that Sandicor, with this new advertising remarks field, seemed to be at least tacitly supporting syndication by enabling it smacked of hypocrisy in the wake of the recent debut of their own front-facing consumer website. That’s the website, you might recall, they described as designed to capture the consumer traffic from the Zillows and Trulias of the world while protecting agents from third-party evil-doers out only (at least for now) to grab their advertising dollars.

In other words, it sounded like they were saying, “We are helping Zillow and the likes (by making it easy and attractive for our agents to send their listings on over), but we really want them dead.” So, my knee-jerk reaction was, “Dudes. Do we have a plan?”

I think we might.

I admittedly didn’t have all the facts (and probably still don’t), which is an unfortunate side effect of being a working girl. So, what I was not aware of until this morning was this: While I was scanning my client's disclosures and meeting the photographer, Sandicor also had decided that as part of their little data feed remapping effort, they would be limiting the number of photos included in the third-party feeds –  to four. Compare that to the twenty-five photos we can actually upload in the MLS, and consider that photos are king. Now, who's your daddy? Take that, syndication sites!

Seriously, I may feel differently when I have had time to sleep on it, but right now I am standing on my chair and offering a personal round of applause. This was bold and rather creative. Maybe it’s not “No more syndication. Period!” uber-bold, but I can think of about forty reasons why it was a smart middle-ground approach to take. I can start with the simple argument that not all of Sandicor's subscribing agents and brokers are on my side of the syndication argument and, while I might lack polital acumen, they must be political; I could end with the idea that our MLS would probably have a hard time defending a position of telling us where and with whom we can and can't advertise our listings.

But, I hold firm to my belief that third-party syndication is run amok. In it's present form, it benefits neither the consumer nor the agents and brokers. It benefits the third-party site holders and, in one case, their shareholders. And I do not believe, as some have suggested, that we are too far down this road to reverse course. Apparently, neither does Sandicor.

I will indeed sleep on it. In the meantime, I'll give credit where credit is due. For now, this feels like a good move.

(This is a little trip through Kris' brain that I originally penned back in July, 2009. With all of the recent hubub surrounding the listing syndication debate, many have chosen to make the idea of dual agency central to their arguments (ironically, on both sides). So it seemed fitting to rerun my own position on the idea of an agent playing a dual role in the transaction. In short, it's risky business at best, but I continue to hold that whether the practice is the devil incarnate or not is strictly situational. It depends on a lot of things — including the buyers and sellers and their particular needs, the circumstances, and the agent involved. Gefilte fish is generally sort of gnarly too, but there a couple of times a year is makes sense and ends up tasting pretty darn good.

Oh – and the part about the buyer's agent being disintermediated by the web? Thankfully, I wrong about that one. But listing agent shoppers are still out there in force, make no mistake.)

photo credit: Ruth L

(Editor's Note: Steve is somewhere out of broadband range with Daughter #2 conquering yet another pristine high Sierra trail, this being his 48^th "last-trip-ever-cause-I'm-getting-too-old-I-promise" backpacking adventure. I do my best work — and get into the most trouble — when he is unaware.)

It seems we are at it again. Dual agency is the topic du jour on the blogs this week (which makes no sense, but you get what I mean), and I spent most of that time plugging my ears and averting my eyes. That is because I seem to be in the minority on this issue. But having decided recently to get back on the horse, I am ready to declare "game on."

Dual agency, strictly speaking, is where the same brokerage represents both the buyer and a seller in a transaction. If two different agents from the same company, say Millineum 42 or Rock Solid Realty, are representing both parties, this is dual agency, but that is not the kind of dual agency most are concerned with. It is the single-agent dual agent which tends to get everyone in a lather.

Dual Agency Refresher

Say I have a listing contract with a seller. I have an agency relationship with the seller; I am his fiduciary. Now, what if a would-be buyer comes to me and asks me to write an offer for him? In this case, if I agree, I also am establishing an agency relationship with the buyer; now, I am his fiduciary as well. On the face, this sounds like the work of the devil, and rightly so. The argument is rather obvious. How can I pound my fists on the table in an attempt to negotiate the highest price for the seller and then, presto, change hats and chairs and argue for the lowest price for my buyer client? I can't. But…

I'll repeat a little speech we are called on to deliver at almost every listing presentation, and it is generally in response to the question, "If you represent the buyer too, will you reduce your fee?" Remember, the listing contract specifies both the total fee due to the listing agent and the portion of that fee that will be paid to a cooperating broker. Right or wrong, the seller is paying the listing agent the fee, and the seller and listing agent are agreeing that a portion of the fee (usually, but not always, half) will be sent the way of the buyer's broker if there is one. In short, the seller is hiring me to bring a palatable offer to the table. Part of doing that is by offering compensation to another agent who can assist, but it is the listing agent's contract.

The Speech

But, back to the speech. It goes something like this. Dual agency by its very nature begs at least the perception of conflict of interest, so it is not something we seek out. In addition to marketing your home and generating offers, my job is to negotiate the best price for your home that the market will bear while keeping us all out of the pokey. In certain circumstances, dual agency may be to your benefit and to the buyer's. In others, it may not. Under no circumstances will we act as dual agents if even one of the parties is just slightly less than thrilled with the notion. Thrilled clients trump the paycheck every day of the week. That's how we roll.

Where is the argument?

So, why would dual agency possible be acceptable, even beneficial, to both parties? There can be many reasons. Let's start with defining the "agent." I happen to work in tandem with my husband and business partner. Functionally, we do not operate as the two-headed agent. He has closed transactions where I have never met the client or seen the home and the other way around. In the event we both have an initial relationship with the client, it always evolves to the point where there is one primary point of contact, and the other is relegated to back-up mode. Who takes the lead is a natural evolution, sometimes dependent on schedules but more often on personalities.

So, we have the ability to act as dual agents because we are "dual" agents. This may sound like semantics, and it won't work if you are working with agents who are ethically challenged, but ethics are central to our model and our being. The day I knowingly breach ethics, you have my permission to shoot me through the temple and call it a day. (I'm embellishing; report me to the Department of Real Estate and have my license revoked. It's just as painful but a little less a felony.) Case in point – we actually had a listing this year where I was the lead on the listing, while Steve had a buyer client he had been working with for a year who wanted to make an offer. He did, with Steve, and two other buyers did, with their own agents. The home closed escrow two months ago, and Steve's client is still out looking. It was one of my proudest moments.

If you as an agent are in a position to divide and conquer, it can work. If you have an established relationship with a buyer who trusts only you to represent them, it can work. If you are a single agent who has to deal loyalties from a deck just to "make the deal," then the dual agency naysayers have a valid point.

Web 2.0 is Disintermediating the Buyers' Agent

I'm not saying this is a good thing, cutting the buyers' agent out of the equation. It's not; in fact, it stinks. It's just that the reality of the world in which we now live is that consumers are empowered with information and access. They are taking matters into their own hands. And many buyers sense that by buying direct, there may be a benefit. I'm not saying it is always so, or even mostly so (Note to attorneys: Commissions are negotiable!), but variable commissions are not all that uncommon. An example of a variable commission is where the listing agent agrees to a total commission of "X" unless he represents both parties, in which case the commission will be "X minus something."  So, free agent buyers (no pun intended) are becoming more commonplace. And, in the case of the variable commission and two parties living in the land of reasonableness, a gap can be closed to their mutual benefit. Turn your back on this segment of the buyer population, and you are shrinking your selling client's buyer pool to their detriment.

Circumstantial Evidence

Finally, circumstances may beg for a dual agency situation. Recently, we were approached by a would-be buyer for one of our listing who wanted the home – badly. They were informed, they had been looking, they had done the research and the math, and they knew exactly what they wanted to pay. Only, they had a home to sell. Now, had they waltzed in with another agent, our client may have been less than inclined to entertain their contingent offer. But, the seller trusted us. They knew how we marketed, they trusted our opinion of value, and they knew that if we said the buyer's home would be under contract in a given period of time, it would. Anyone else, and they likely would have kicked them to the curb. Using the divide and conquer approach, we now have two clients who couldn't be happier with the outcome, which is ultimately the goal.

In Short (like I'm capable of that)

Dual agency has many forms. It can be evil incarnate or it take the form of accomplishing what we were hired to do – sell the home.  It is situational; there are situations in which is can work exceedingly well, yet other times it can be a recipe for disaster. Making a blanket indictment of the practice is, in my opinion, knee-jerk. One of the biggest vocal opponents of dual agency, Ardell DellaLoggia, once said it best:

"If" the beginning of every residential real estate transaction were the buyers and the sellers and their agents meeting and chatting, maybe having dinner together and a drink or two for an hour. Then everyone walks through the house together while the seller tells the buyer the story of their life in the house and the buyer and agents ask questions. Then the offer is written, and proceeds through the inspections to find things the seller just truly doesn't know about. At the end of the transaction when all items and terms are fully negotiated, the buyer comes into the room with a check in his hand. The seller comes into the room with the keys to all doors and garage door openers and manuals on appliances. The agents review the final numbers and nod to the closing agent.

Sometimes, just sometimes, that is what a dual agency situation can accomplish.