Is there anything in your experience that has prepared you to expect something for nothing? No? What a revolting revelation! But it seems to be universally true-you get what you pay for-nothing more, nothing less. Well, sometimes much less. Occasionally more-maybe the folks from "Antiques Roadshow" can provide a few anecdotes-the $5 garage sale find that should be insured for $17,000, for example. However, I think we all know that these are the exception rather than the rule.

So why is it that when it comes to real estate, for many there is an overwhelming compulsion to believe they may be the one beat the system? Maybe it's because the perceived rewards are potentially great, and this is the primary niche that most of the discount brokerages seem to have targeted their message to. Realistically, I believe there will always be a segment of the market that has a need to maintain control, regardless of the costs in time and money. And they certainly earn that right-paying dearly in reduced sale prices relative to the market.

According to the NAR, FSBO (For Sale By Owner) sales were down in 2006, from 13% of sellers in 2005 going it alone to 12% in 2006. This would suggest that the shifting market has persuaded some sellers that the rewards of an unrepresented sale are diminishing as the requirements of marketing a home, negotiating the transaction, and shepherding all parties and paperwork through escrow has become more time and resource intensive.

Based on this and the fact that nationally the housing market has slowed relative to the past five to six years of a decidedly seller-slanted market, I have begun to wonder what the draw could possibly be for those sellers who elect to go with a discount or limited-service brokerage. I realize we're pushing a very large rock up a steep and slippery slope, but it seems to me that the disconnect starts with a misconception about the job of an agent.

Granted, years of comparison to the crusty used car lot crowd hasn't helped our image, but the latest divergence in business models from limited/discount to full-service and the range of options in between has served to further cloud what were already murky waters.

However, what seems to be getting lost are the definitions of an agent. According to Webster's, an agent is:

1. One who acts for, or in the place of, another, by authority from him; one entrusted with the business of another; a substitute; a deputy; a factor.

2. An active power or cause; that which has the power to produce an effect, such as a physical, chemical, or medicinal agent; as, heat is a powerful agent.

To my mind, these two are inseparable: an agent should both execute the business of another, acting in his place, with his authority, and producing a physical effect-in this case resulting in the sale of a property.

To use the term ‘agent' in any other context regarding a real estate transaction is misleading. While a limited-service brokerage may have access to the local multiple listing service (MLS) and is authorized to enter properties, its value ends once the property has been dutifully added to the list. Frequently, they offer no representation-leaving the seller to negotiate his own transaction. And as an agent of change, they don't market the property, because once it's on the list, their job is done. So in both measures of agency, there is no connection between its actions and the title.

Page 1 of 3 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 3 | Next