THAT Sure Went Fast (Too Fast??)

"Now You See it . . .
Now You Don't"

In a post last month, I posed the question, "Did the Seller Leave Money on the Table? Four Ways to Tell."

That post came to mind as I scanned the particulars of 2900 Chowen Ave. South, which came on MLS this afternoon -- I'm not kidding -- as "Active" at 1:45 p.m.; was switched to "Pending" at 1:47 p.m.; then was switched from "Pending" to "Closed" at 1:49 p.m.

Total elapsed time?

Four minutes.

Sale Postmortem

Well, at least other Buyers (and their agents) had a "heads up" that 2900 Chowen was coming on the market, right?

Wrong.

I can only speak for myself -- but I live 2 blocks away, have sold over a dozen properties worth $6 million-plus within a mile, and have an extensive local network of contacts.

And I didn't hear a peep.

OK, so at least the Seller got a good price, right?

Draw your own conclusion, but the asking price was $200,000, and the selling price was $150,000. (As a percentage of market time, that just might be the world's biggest price reduction --ever.)

That compares with a tax assessed value for just the land of $196,700.

Oh . . . and a couple doors down, the lot at 2822 Chowen is now "Pending." List price: $285k -- for a lot that is 21% smaller than 2900 Chowen (6,050 square feet vs. 7,623).

Single Agent Dual Agency: Exhibit A

OK, well at least the Seller's agent negotiated hard for them, right?

Hard to say, because the Seller's agent . . . . was also the Buyer's agent.

Called "single agent dual agency," such deals are notorious for conflicts of interest.

If you're keeping track, that's 4-for-4 on my "four ways to tell" if the Seller left money on the table.

As I say . . . draw your own conclusions.

P.S.: So guess what 2900 Chowen is worth according to Zillow? (Called a "zestimate")

Give up?

Try, $406k.

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.

Does Networking Really Work?

Instant Access to 1,600 Realtors

Does Realtor-to-Realtor networking really work?

Well, consider this:

With about 20% of the total listings in the Twin Cities housing market, the percentage of Edina Realty listings sold by other Edina Realty agents is 40%.

That could just be because "we" -- all 1,600-plus local Edina Realty agents -- really like one another.

But the truth is, most of us don't even know each other.

What really explains that 40% statistic is the amount of intra-company networking that constantly takes place -- at weekly office meetings, online, via email, etc.

It's always nice to be able to tell a prospective client during a listing presentation (basically, a job interview for Realtors) that, just by pressing "send" on my PC, I can instantly tell 1,600 other Realtors about my hot new listing.

Dual Agency - Two Kinds

When a Buyer represented by an Edina agent sells a home listed by another Edina agent, the resulting relationship is called "dual agency."

That's because both the Buyer and Seller are represented by the same broker, Edina.

While that creates some legal awkwardness, the benefit to clients -- in my opinion -- more than offsets the drawbacks

By contrast, when the same agent represents both the Buyer and Seller, that's called "single agent dual agency."

As they say, "that's a horse of a different color."

While single agent dual agency is permissible with sufficient disclosure and both parties' assent, I personally think it's not worth the risk.

In my opinion, the only way to be on both sides of a deal is ultimately . . . to be on neither.

Did They Really "Give it Away?"

How to Tell if it's a "Fire Sale"

Realtors hear it all the time (often from neighbors or prospective Sellers protesting about the value of their home):

"Oh, they gave it away."

"The Smith house? That was a fire sale."

"They sold for way too little."

How to Tell

Whenever I hear the foregoing, I typically respond with the following three questions:

One. How long was the home on the market?

It's awfully hard to make the case that any given home sold too low once it's gotten a couple months -- or years -- of market exposure.

That's true even if the marketing has been, shall we say, lacklustre (see "Fire Sale" Factors, below)

Two. Did you see the inside?

It's surprising how many people who are convinced that a home sold for too little . . . have never been inside! Or, if they were, were last in 25 years ago.

It's pretty hard to assess the value of a home you really don't know very well (if at all). Which leads to . . .

Three. Did you inspect it?

I'm aware of several transactions where the ultimate selling price was at least partly explained by major issues uncovered during the inspection.

In one case, a slate roof that looked fine from the street . . . wasn't. Replacement cost: north of $30k.

True Fire Sales

Of course, none of the foregoing is to say that some homes do appear to sell for too little.

In fact, I'd (conservatively) estimate that as many as one-third of the homes on the market fail to maximize their selling price.

Here are the factors that I think are most responsible:

--Poor (or no) staging
--Poor (or no) marketing, including unflattering or out-of-season photos
--Initially overpriced, which leads to too-long market time, which ultimately leads to a discounted selling price
--Major discount due to minor deferred maintenance (I tell Sellers that every $1 in deferred repairs can easily subtract $3 from their selling price).
--Bank-owned property
--For Sale by Owner ("FSBO"): usual pattern is, from way-too-high, to, way-too-low
--Restrictive showing instructions: Buyers won't buy something they can't get in.
--Estate sale with out-of-town owners (sometimes, they don't have a clue; other times, they explicitly tell the listing agent that selling fast is more important than maximizing the price).

Plus, perhaps the biggest yellow flag of all: the home sold the first week (or day) it was on the market -- or even before it hit the market.

The Buyer's agent?

The same agent representing the Seller (called "single agent dual agency").

(Note: to really know if the price is below market . . . you (still) have to know both the home in question and the market.)

Selling Your Own Listings

Buyer's Market Phenomenon:
More "Dual Agency" Deals?

I don't have any hard data, but at least anecdotally, it seems like the number of homes being sold by the listing agent -- that is, they represent the Buyer as well as the Seller -- is on the rise.

(One of the quirks of real estate is that the agent representing the Buyer is called the "selling agent"; when one agent represents both parties, it's called "single agent dual agency").

It further seems like that phenomenon is happening more in the upper brackets.

Assuming I'm right about that, what's the explanation?

"Forlorn Listings"

Here's my shot:

When a home first comes on the market -- especially if it's a a "hot property" that's in great condition, priced well, etc. -- Buyers' agents practically line up to get their clients in the door.

Six months or twelve months later . . . not so much.

Showings drop to a trickle, if that. (Showings are when Buyer's agents take their clients through a home privately.)

Often times, the only agent driving any traffic to the home is the listing agent, via open houses.

As a result, the odds of the listing agent also finding the Buyer (or vice versa) go up significantly.

Upper Bracket Phenomenon?

So, which homes are sitting on the market the longest?

Not the entry-level homes, roughly defined as under $200k; those have been selling briskly all year.

Rather, the homes with the longest projected market time now are the most expensive homes. According to MLS recently, there is now a three year supply of $1-million plus homes on the market in the Twin Cities.

With all that competition and scarce Buyers, a Realtor who wants to sell such a home had better be prepared to do it themselves.

What Offers Did the Banks See?

More B.S. ("Bait & Switch")
from the Foreclosure Banks

The water cooler is long gone, but that doesn't mean Realtors don't engage in "water cooler talk."

One of the hottest topics at the moment is foreclosures.

Here's how it appears to the (above) average Realtor -- OK, me -- who's had some passing involvement representing would-be Buyers in foreclosure deals this Spring, and has compared notes with a number of colleagues:

--A handful of Twin Cities Realtors appear to have "cornered the market" as listing agents, simultaneously representing anywhere from dozens to hundreds (no typo) of foreclosed homes.

--A small but growing number of foreclosed homes appear to be intentionally priced dramatically below market.

There's nothing wrong with pricing conservatively -- I routinely warn my Selling clients of the risks associated with doing the opposite.

However, there's pricing at or slightly below market, to create a sense of Buyer urgency and elicit more than one offer -- and then there's pricing 30% - 50% below market.

The result, as you might expect, is a feeding frenzy: I've now seen -- and participated in -- several deals where there were more than 15 offers on a single home.

More B.S. ("Bait and Switch") from the Banks

That's not savvy marketing; that's financial bait and switch. It's also a violation of Realtor ethics, and likely, state law. (Note: technically, a listing on MLS is not what attorneys call an "offer to sell." Rather, it's a solicitation of an offer.)

Some more details:

--The sales process accompanying many multiple offers is not exactly a model of clarity, punctuality, or fairness (or so it would seem to someone who's handled more than 100 deals).

To put a finer point on it: often times, the whole process smells.

The listing agent is uncommunicative about the status of the property, any required municipal inspections, or the timetable for responding to offers.

The deadline for submitting offers is either unclear, or not enforced.

The prospective Buyer must get pre-approved by the bank selling the foreclosure, even if they have their own financing (from a more reputable lender) lined up.

Even after the bank has accepted an offer, the listing agent's front desk is often unaware(?), and confirming new showing requests. ("Hmm . . . if we leave the door ajar, maybe an even better offer will materialize.")

Nothing is more annoying to a busy Realtor -- or their client -- than wasting your time on a property that you subsequently find out was already sold when you showed it (MLS rules strictly prohibit this, by the way).

Conflicts of Interest

Of course, the biggest issue of all regarding the conduct of foreclosures in multiple offers is, who won (and why)?

Surprise, surprise, in many situations the winning bidder is represented by . . . . wait for it . . . the agent representing the bank!

This is called dual agency, and is fraught with conflicts of interest. Perhaps that's why 42 states -- but inexplicably, not Minnesota -- prohibit it.

Even when the winning bidder is represented by another agent, it's hardly evident how -- or why -- that bid won.

I've represented one client now who, in the span of three weeks, has lost out on three multiple offers, each time bidding anywhere from 10% to 30% over asking price, within 48 hours of the property hitting the market. Other Realtors tell me they've participated -- and lost -- on even more multiple offer deals.

Is this just sour grapes, or, is something else going on?

"I'm Never Going to Tell. Hang me"

It's certainly possible that the bank chose the highest and best offer, after carefully weighing the various offers' financing, closing dates, and other key terms.

However, given all the murkiness surrounding these deals, you certainly wonder.

The biggest question on the lips of the Realtors representing all the runners-up -- many who also offered well over asking price: exactly what offers did the bank actually see?

The potential for mischief -- or worse -- in foreclosure deals reminds me of a favorite joke:

A posse hunting a bank robber finally apprehends the suspect. However, he doesn't speak English, so the head of the posse has to find an interpreter. Through the interpreter, he tells the robber, "if you don't tell us where you hid the money, we're going to hang you."

The interpreter relays the warning to the robber, who blurts out (in Spanish): 'I hid it under a big oak tree a mile west of town.' The interpreter pauses a moment, then tells the posse leader (in English): 'he says, 'I'm never going to tell, hang me.''