6 ms·

Yes, that was the argument in Freakonomics and they're completely right. The real estate market can be extremely receptive to low prices, so if you list your h

by ssharp 12y ago

Yes, that was the argument in Freakonomics and they're completely right. The real estate market can be extremely receptive to low prices, so if you list your house very low, you're likely to sell it much faster. The bulk of the money the agents make will come from the part of the house that could sell very easily. If a house could sell for $200,000 today, but you have to have it listed six months before it could sell for $220,000 (which is unknown at the time, of course). The seller agent is going to make $6,000 of the $200k sale (3%) but will only make $600 more from selling it for an extra $20,000. And a lot of the time that 3% number is high. If they aren't a broker, they're splitting that 3% with someone else, so maybe the extra $20k sale price only nets them an extra $300 in their pocket. When I was selling my house a few years ago, I talked with one agent that was recommended to me and he was so blatantly obvious in his desire to get commissions that I couldn't believe the people who recommended him failed to see that. He came in, refused to list the house for less than a 6% split (this is negotiable, 5% isn't uncommon at all) and wanted to LIST the house for around $8,000 less than what I actually sold it for a few months later. It wasn't that big of a house and was in an area with very affordable housing, so that extra $8,000 was high enough of a total % to make a huge difference. Also, I'd venture that many people selling their houses still have a mortgage on the house, so the huge base commission the seller agent makes isn't even coming off of the owner's profit, it's coming of the amount they need to pay back the note.

kbenson 12y ago
Depending on the market, a lower list price can work out really well. If demand is high and supply us low, a low list price and not accepting (or at least responding to) offers until after a specific date can result in a bidding war increasing the price 5-10%, as you've increased your exposure. This tactic has been used to great effect over the last few years in the area North of San Francisco. I bought a house a year ago, and this was particularly annoying as it made it hard to determine what houses were really available in our price range, since listed prices were often fictional. Brokers suggested coming in $5k to $15k above listed price as an initial bid if others seemed interested, just so you would be taken seriously. Edit: s/$15k to $15k/$5k to $15k/
- ssharp 12y ago
  My experience has not been in "hot" real estate markets, so I've never experienced the low listing price as a tactic other than trying to sell a house faster. Most houses in my direct area sit around for at least several months, if not several years. I'm sure other areas are substantially different.
mooreds 12y ago
There are good agents and bad agents, just like good and bad folks in any profession. (Actually, because the barriers to entry are so low, there are probably more bad real estate agents.) See my comment below about LTV--if a consumer feels they aren't being treated well, the agent might make a bit more on this sale, but lose five figures of income later. Just like that agent that you interacted with. Now, if you feel like the consumer isn't educated enough to know they are being treated with care, well, that's a different discussion entirely.
- ssharp 12y ago
  A lot will depend on the situation as well. Maybe you're willing to take less money to sell the house faster. Getting a very aggressive agent would be a good option then. Like with most things, you're best bet is to do the research and gather several options. When I was selling my house, I spoke with three or four agents and ultimately chose a flat-fee MLS service.
- jessriedel 12y ago
  Noisy reputation systems and customer education are better than nothing, but they pale in comparison to properly aligned incentives.
  - mooreds 12y ago
    Brokers (of all kinds) have been around for millenia and will be around for millenia more. There are always consumers who are willing to pay for expert advice and there are always sellers/producers who are willing to accept less than top dollar because they don't want the hassle of dealing with the consumer (which doesn't scale). I think that technology can empower the consumer, but doubt it can empower the consumer enough to eliminate middlemen (of which brokers are one type). I've heard that story before, and all I saw was a different kind of middleman (heck, Amazon.com is a middle man for a lot of products). So, that said, how can you align incentives? You have a limited number of ways to pay the middleman or broker: you can pay them a flat fee, you can pay them an hourly rate, or you can pay them based on the size of the deal. Which incentive structure do you think aligns interests the best?
cookiecaper 12y ago
Economists have a tendency to overlook data that is difficult to quantify. In the short term, a real estate agent may make more money by rushing a sale, but on a macro level, he does himself a disservice. Real estate agents need to become your friend and engender loyalty so that you'll recommend them and so that you'll use them again when you sell your new house. Every hour spent with a client and every dollar knocked off the final price is an investment in a long-term relationship that has the potential to net many more sales down the road. Protecting that stream of future work is much more important than rushing sales for short-term gain.
- roel_v 12y ago
  We sold a house last year. I had read Freakonomics so I thought I was going to outsmart everybody (which I knew was a stupid to think from the start, of course). Turns out most real estate agents (the ones we talked to at least) weren't even financially literate enough to even understand the concept. At some point I tried to explain to one the Freakonomics theory. He always kept saying 'the more I sell, the more commission' - the concept of 'time value' was completely foreign to him. Maybe he was just playing dumb, I don't know. Anyway, in my experience, most agents are happy wasting a bunch of time on a sale - having coffee to discuss 'the status' (2 viewings scheduled for next week, the one from last Monday seemed genuine - could have send me a 2 line email. But hey, he could tell funny stories, so I don't mind having coffee); spending 45 minutes on discussing 'the strategy' on how to deal with an offer, ... I never got the impression they cared about a house being a few months longer in their inventory. It filled up their website and office windows, made them big and professional, and as long as their cash flow is OK, anything listed for under a year was OK (much longer than that makes them look weak, of course; also, the market is bad in my area anyway). I have since reconsidered what I once thought was a plausible argument about real estate agents. Maybe it's sample bias, I don't know, but the ones I dealt with, weren't 'rational actors' in any sense an economist would need them to be to make their models work (and I work with economists and their models a lot).
  - nl 12y ago
    This is very true - although I think the "non-rational actor" argument needs some thinking through. The Freakonomics model completely misses the fact that most agents don't often have enough houses to sell for the time spent on each one to be a constraint. Given that, in many circumstances it really does make sense for the agent to spent an extra few hours working on your house if it will get you another 10K, because they get a small amount of money from that. It's true the marginal gains aren't high, but often they simply have nothing else to do! Additionally, "working on your house" often means meeting more people who are interested in buying. Very often, some of those people will be looking for an agent to sell their house, so the agent sees that as an advertising opportunity.

by ssharp 12y ago

kbenson 12y ago

Depending on the market, a lower list price can work out really well. If demand is high and supply us low, a low list price and not accepting (or at least responding to) offers until after a specific date can result in a bidding war increasing the price 5-10%, as you've increased your exposure. This tactic has been used to great effect over the last few years in the area North of San Francisco. I bought a house a year ago, and this was particularly annoying as it made it hard to determine what houses were really available in our price range, since listed prices were often fictional. Brokers suggested coming in $5k to $15k above listed price as an initial bid if others seemed interested, just so you would be taken seriously. Edit: s/$15k to $15k/$5k to $15k/

ssharp 12y ago
My experience has not been in "hot" real estate markets, so I've never experienced the low listing price as a tactic other than trying to sell a house faster. Most houses in my direct area sit around for at least several months, if not several years. I'm sure other areas are substantially different.

mooreds 12y ago

There are good agents and bad agents, just like good and bad folks in any profession. (Actually, because the barriers to entry are so low, there are probably more bad real estate agents.) See my comment below about LTV--if a consumer feels they aren't being treated well, the agent might make a bit more on this sale, but lose five figures of income later. Just like that agent that you interacted with. Now, if you feel like the consumer isn't educated enough to know they are being treated with care, well, that's a different discussion entirely.

ssharp 12y ago
A lot will depend on the situation as well. Maybe you're willing to take less money to sell the house faster. Getting a very aggressive agent would be a good option then. Like with most things, you're best bet is to do the research and gather several options. When I was selling my house, I spoke with three or four agents and ultimately chose a flat-fee MLS service.
jessriedel 12y ago
Noisy reputation systems and customer education are better than nothing, but they pale in comparison to properly aligned incentives.
- mooreds 12y ago
  Brokers (of all kinds) have been around for millenia and will be around for millenia more. There are always consumers who are willing to pay for expert advice and there are always sellers/producers who are willing to accept less than top dollar because they don't want the hassle of dealing with the consumer (which doesn't scale). I think that technology can empower the consumer, but doubt it can empower the consumer enough to eliminate middlemen (of which brokers are one type). I've heard that story before, and all I saw was a different kind of middleman (heck, Amazon.com is a middle man for a lot of products). So, that said, how can you align incentives? You have a limited number of ways to pay the middleman or broker: you can pay them a flat fee, you can pay them an hourly rate, or you can pay them based on the size of the deal. Which incentive structure do you think aligns interests the best?

cookiecaper 12y ago

Economists have a tendency to overlook data that is difficult to quantify. In the short term, a real estate agent may make more money by rushing a sale, but on a macro level, he does himself a disservice. Real estate agents need to become your friend and engender loyalty so that you'll recommend them and so that you'll use them again when you sell your new house. Every hour spent with a client and every dollar knocked off the final price is an investment in a long-term relationship that has the potential to net many more sales down the road. Protecting that stream of future work is much more important than rushing sales for short-term gain.

roel_v 12y ago
We sold a house last year. I had read Freakonomics so I thought I was going to outsmart everybody (which I knew was a stupid to think from the start, of course). Turns out most real estate agents (the ones we talked to at least) weren't even financially literate enough to even understand the concept. At some point I tried to explain to one the Freakonomics theory. He always kept saying 'the more I sell, the more commission' - the concept of 'time value' was completely foreign to him. Maybe he was just playing dumb, I don't know. Anyway, in my experience, most agents are happy wasting a bunch of time on a sale - having coffee to discuss 'the status' (2 viewings scheduled for next week, the one from last Monday seemed genuine - could have send me a 2 line email. But hey, he could tell funny stories, so I don't mind having coffee); spending 45 minutes on discussing 'the strategy' on how to deal with an offer, ... I never got the impression they cared about a house being a few months longer in their inventory. It filled up their website and office windows, made them big and professional, and as long as their cash flow is OK, anything listed for under a year was OK (much longer than that makes them look weak, of course; also, the market is bad in my area anyway). I have since reconsidered what I once thought was a plausible argument about real estate agents. Maybe it's sample bias, I don't know, but the ones I dealt with, weren't 'rational actors' in any sense an economist would need them to be to make their models work (and I work with economists and their models a lot).
- nl 12y ago
  This is very true - although I think the "non-rational actor" argument needs some thinking through. The Freakonomics model completely misses the fact that most agents don't often have enough houses to sell for the time spent on each one to be a constraint. Given that, in many circumstances it really does make sense for the agent to spent an extra few hours working on your house if it will get you another 10K, because they get a small amount of money from that. It's true the marginal gains aren't high, but often they simply have nothing else to do! Additionally, "working on your house" often means meeting more people who are interested in buying. Very often, some of those people will be looking for an agent to sell their house, so the agent sees that as an advertising opportunity.