Tag: broker

• Multiple representation

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  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.

  2015.10.08

• Towards more publicness

  Back when the commercial internet first started to take off it was uncommon to use your real name online. Instead people relied on usernames and other pseudynoms to represent themselves. I honestly can’t remember what I used in those days, but I’m sure it was something ridiculous.

  Over time though that started to change. 

  Blogging started to take off in the late 1990s. And we started to become more comfortable sharing personal information online. Perhaps the biggest shift though, came with the introduction of Facebook in 2004 (over 10 years ago!). All of a sudden people – young college students initially – started sharing lots of personal information online, including photos of themsleves and their friends.

  But this wasn’t an overnight change. When Facebook first launched, privacy was an important component. It still is, but I would argue that it has become less central given how public a lot of other social media platforms are today. Twitter, for instance, is what it is today largely because of its publicness. 

  For my own social media accounts, I have made every single one of them completely public. From Twitter to Facebook to Instagram to Snapchat, nothing I post to social media is restricted in any way. And I do that because I believe we are headed towards a world with more – not less – openness, transparency and publicness.

  Of course, I’m not just talking about social media and tech. I’m talking about open data in general.

  Earlier this year, the Toronto Real Estate Board clamped down on real estate brokers who were publishing historical sales data online. Citing privacy concerns, TREB ordered them to stop or lose their access to the MLS system. 

  For those of you not from familiar with the Toronto real estate market, historical sales data for homes is not open and published online. You generally need to go through a realtor to get access to this data. Some think this is the right approach. And others think it is antiquated.

  But as I explained above, our conception of what should be private can, and will, evolve over time.

  Here are the details on my home:

  I purchased it in September 2012 for exactly $400,000 (Canadian). It’s a 650 square foot condo in the St. Lawrence Market neighborhood of Toronto. It has one bedroom, a 400 square foot terrace, one parking spot, and 10′ ceilings.

  Sooner or later, I believe this information will be freely available online. But since that’s not the case today, I figured I would just tell you. Sharing this information is not a big deal for me.

  2015.03.25

• How different generations buy and sell real estate

  I just came across the following generational home buying data from the National Association of Realtors in the US (via Curbed SF):

  

  It was initially published in July 2013 and so I think the data represents what happened in 2012. The report isn’t exactly clear about the timing. In any event, what I found more interesting is how the various generations perceive the utility of agents. There are different use cases.

  Millenials feel the need to have an agent help them navigate the purchasing process. This makes sense, as many of them would be first time buyers. However, Millenials are also almost 4x more likely to engage agents for “a limited set of services as requested by the seller”, as opposed to just a conventional full service brokerage agreement.

  On the other hand, older buyers like to have an agent help them identify property deficiencies and sellers over 32 years old use a full service broker more than 80% of the time. I find this interesting because it starts to speak to potential changes in the marketplace.

  Looking at a more recent report from the NAR (2013 Profile of Buyers and Sellers), I found it surprising to learn that the share of buyers who used an agent went from 69% in 2001 to 88% in 2013. Even with the internet disrupting so many industries, realtor market share has actually grown over the last decade.

  Not surprisingly, the percentage of sellers who used an agent is also 88%. This is because the dual-agency model requires that both sides of the marketplace be represented.

  Finally, the percentage of sellers who sold their home without an agent is roughly 9%. And 46% said it was because they wanted to save on commission. I’m assuming that the reason the math doesn’t add up (9% for-sale-by-owner + 88% agent) is because of estate sales, auctions and so on.

  The real estate marketplace is an interesting one. What do you think we’ll see in the future?

  2013.12.06