4.1K+Subscribers
Popularity
20Supporters
Subscribe
In the 9th century, France enacted into law a way to buy and sell property through something known as une vente en viager. My understanding is that there are other European countries that also allow this, but that it's most popular in France, even if it still forms a relatively small portion of the market.
Here's how it typically works. You're an older person (or older couple) and you want to use your home to generate some cash, but you also want to stay living in your home until the very end. So you offer it up for sale en viager occupé. (This is the most popular option, but there's also le viager libre, where the seller moves out immediately.)
Whoever buys it will usually pay you, the seller, in two ways. They will pay you an upfront lump sum (called le bouquet) and a recurring payment (called la rente viagère) up until the day you die (or both of you die). Once this happens, the buyer then gets full enjoyment of the property. The transaction is complete.
So why would either party want to sell and buy in this way?
Well, if you're the seller, the obvious benefits are that (1) you get to continue living in your home and (2) you get some money now and for the rest of your life. This can be useful if you, say, run out of cash during retirement. It's a means to financial independence.
For buyers, it's the opportunity to maybe acquire a property below its current market price. Because if you don't have access to the home until some undetermined date in the future, well then a discount will obviously need to be applied. The initial lump sum payment is often around 30% of the current value. The other attractive feature is that it's a form of financing for buyers who may not have all the money they need today.
In the end, this is a bet on life expectancy. Because if the seller ends up living for a really long time, then they get the benefit of more annuity payments. However, if they end up living fewer years than expected, then the buyer benefits from having to pay less in annuity payments. They got to buy below market.
It's a fascinating pricing and time-value-of-money exercise, but it's also a potentially morbid way to buy real estate. On the one hand, you could be helping someone live a dignified retirement. On the other hand, you stand to benefit if they die sooner than expected.
Cover photo by Zach Dyson on Unsplash
If you’ve ever bought a property, you might be familiar with something called “multiple representation.” It’s when one real estate agent represents both the seller and the buyer for a particular transaction. It may also be called “dual agency.”
The reason this can happen is because, here in North America at least, real estate sales are typically done with two agents: a seller’s agent and a buyer’s agent. The real estate commissions are (directly) paid by the seller to the listing brokerage, but it’s usually split between both brokerages and agents involved in the transaction.
However, if you’re an agent-less buyer and you happen to come across a property that you like on your own (perhaps by browsing around online), the selling agent will likely ask you to also sign a representation agreement with them. And that means entering the world of “multiple representation.”
Here’s some of the wording that the Ontario Real Estate Association uses:
MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION: The Listing Brokerage has entered into a Buyer Representation Agreement with the Buyer and represents the interests of the Seller and the Buyer, with their consent, for this transaction. The Listing Brokerage must be impartial and equally protect the interests of the Seller and the Buyer in this transaction. The Listing Brokerage has a duty of full disclosure to both the Seller and the Buyer, including a requirement to disclose all factual information about the property known to the Listing Brokerage.
But I don’t understand how this can work.
You now have a sole agent that is supposed to act as a neutral facilitator between (1) a party that is paying them all of their salary for the transaction (and which increases as the selling price goes up) and (2) a party that just came off the street (and where there’s no preexisting relationship).
That’s why multiple representation scenarios always make me uncomfortable. Real estate already has too many information asymmetries for my liking and this feels like a conflict of interest in almost all of the cases. I guess that’s why they are not allowed in many states in the US.
Earlier this week I wrote a post about a new build home under construction at 37 Canerouth Drive in the west end of Toronto. As part of that post, I asked people what they thought the home would be valued at when it was completed. There were just under 10 responses (many thanks!) and I thought it was really fascinating to see the ranges.
A lot of you responded in the comment section of the post, but a bunch of the other estimates came in via Facebook, Twitter, and email. It isn’t a huge data set, but I’ve nonetheless consolidated the ones I could remember I received:
$2,375,000
$2,750,000
$1,800,000
$3,000,000
$8,500,000
$2,600,000
$3,500,000
$1,750,000
If you average these estimates, you come to a value of $3.3M. However, the clear outlier is the $8.5M. So let’s take that one out and see how the number changes. If you do that, you then get an average estimate of $2.5M. A pretty big swing.
Now, I don’t know offhand how accurate that number really is, but I’m fascinated by this idea of “the crowd” determining value. Particularly for markets such as housing where supply can be completely heterogeneous and there isn’t a lot of transaction volume to refer back to (compared to other types of markets).
Because my strong belief is that under the right circumstances and with enough data points, this number could end up being hugely accurate. And, it could also be more forward looking since it’s capturing current market sentiment as opposed to being based on historical transaction prices.
If you have any thoughts on this, I’d love to hear from you :)
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
