Did the Seller Leave Money on the Table?

Four Ways to Tell

In the history of mankind, no first-time Mother has ever under-dressed their newborn in the winter.

--Manhattan Pediatrician

So which pediatrician uttered the above line?

Mine (and my wife's).

What prompted that comment were the 3 layers of clothing my wife had already put on our newborn son (this was 10 years ago), coupled with her anxiously asking him whether he thought "the baby was dressed warmly enough?"

What's that got to do with real estate?

I've yet to encounter the Homeowner who thought their house sold for too much.

Money Left on the Table

On the contrary, a great deal of Sellers seem to believe that their home sold for too little.

So, are they ever right?

To help answer the question, here are the four, inter-related variables I'd weigh:

One. How long was the property on the market?

It's hard to argue that any home on the market listed for more than a month -- let alone six months or a year -- sold for too little.

In today's networked, 24/7 world, serious Buyers (and their Realtors) often know about properties before they come on the market.

If a home is a good fit for a serious, prospective Buyer, it's a good bet that they'll: a) know about it; and b) have gotten in to take a look.

Assuming, of course, that the home was on the market longer than 48 hours.

Two. Was the home professionally and aggressively marketed?

My checklist of "To Do's" for Sellers literally has 143 items on it.

Things like, "work with professional stager to the get the house ready; "arrange professional photography and meet them at the house"; "proof marketing materials designed by professional desktop publisher"; "do pre-list networking with other Edina agents" (all 1,600 of them); "plug new listing at various Realtor meetings"; "draft and proof (flattering) copy on MLS"; "promote the home's Broker Open."

And so on and so on.

All those things come across loud and clear to prospective Buyers.

And so does their absence.

Three. Who was the Selling agent? (representing the Buyer) -- and was it the same as the Listing Agent?

As I've blogged before, there are two types of dual agency: "broker-level," and "single agent dual agency."

In the first type, both the Buyer and Seller have their own agent -- but they work for the same Broker.

While that legally shifts the agents' duties, in my experience it doesn't alter either the negotiation dynamic or the outcome.

The second kind of dual agency-- where both the Buyer and Seller have the same agent -- is much more problematic.

In my opinion, no agent can serve two masters.

Which is why I will only represent one party in the transaction.

Four. Who was the Listing Agent? (representing the Seller).

Good Realtors have good reputations.

They do repeat business in the same neighborhood(s); are known for being thorough and hard-working; and have an established track record.

Mediocre agents . . . don't. (In fact, you're less and likely to run into mediocre agents, because today's hyper-competitive real estate market has already weeded them out.)

So, to sum up . . . . .

If the same (no-name) agent represented both the Buyer and the Seller; the house sold in 3 days with no prep or marketing campaign to speak of; and no other agents had a chance to get their clients through (or even knew the house was on the market) . . . . yeah, it's just possible that the house sold for too little.

Absent one or more of those factors, I'd be dubious.

P.S.: Note that none of the above factors include, "Sold for less than the Comp's would suggest."

While the Comp's (Comparable Sold Properties) certainly frame the owner's asking price and eventual sale negotiation, showings and actual feedback trump Comp's once a home is actually on the market.