Get Creative

Posted on October 11, 2006 by Eileen

114

[photopress:ebay_1_2.jpg,full,alignleft]

We lost IT. We use to have IT and now we lost IT and now you can get it on ebay! This IT is that huge chunk of our commission that used to come from being the gatekeeper to the multiple. At a listing presentation our competition was only another agent that charged the same fee (there were a few reduced fee offices but it wasn’t a trend).

But they don’t need us anymore for that. They can get it on ebay. And they can get listed for under $400! Of course, taking and uploading the listing in the multiple is just the beginning, but if we’re going to separate out tasks like the actual listing going into the multiple, why not separate out all the tasks and see what they’re really worth. I agree that uploading the listing is a pretty simple task and a lot of agents just fax it in so it probably is only worth $400 (you have to be registered with the mls for this, plus it involves contracts and accuracy of the listing information)….. if that’s all the service a seller wants.

So, last summer I decided to address all of the things that agents do by breaking up the tasks and establishing a monetary value to each. It’s the ala carte menu of listing services and I googled and googled but couldn’t find anyone with anything complete enough online. I even took the coursework to get licensed as a consutant from the National Association of Real Estate Consultants (NAREC) so I could see if someone had already done all that work.

I separated out the tasks ranging from $20/hr for real estate data input, filling flyer boxes, dropping off keys, etc. (a high school kid couldn’t do all of this) to $300/hr for negotiation and problem solving. Wow, I was surprised at how often I worked for $20/hr. I tried to figure out what I’d be charged by different people doing different levels of work and then added a profit margin.

The $300 work i assumed would be done by the senior agent taking the listing and running the team but personally doing tasks that take a lot of experience and skill like price opinions, market timing, the totally important negotiations with both buyers and the buyer’s agents and solving all those problems (I had a list of 88 things that can go wrong with a transaction). Personally, this is where I’d prefer to spend my time.

The results are on the LTDre.com website if you want to see how it works. My slick computer tech even built it to automatically compute based on different packages and house price.

What got me thinking about this was today’s Inman article on bloated commissions and how much I agree with it. The article suggests, “consumers would benefit most from fee-for-service real estate companies that base compensation on flat fees, hourly fees and other specific payments for services rather than relying on a commission rate that is based on a percentage of the sale price of a home.

Do the Banks Own Seattle?

Posted on October 10, 2006 by ARDELL

[photopress:bank.jpg,full,alignright] The photo is of the Bank I worked in for twenty years. Lots of memories in there and lots of pranks pulled up on that balcony 🙂

I was perusing The Tim’s blog while writing something on my blog earlier today, and ran into the comments regarding King County median income and median home prices, again. I never seem to draw the same conclusions as other people. So I tested my thinking on the subject. From my way of thinking, at least SOME of the people have SOME money to put down when they purchase a house. So the median income is relative to the median mortgage used in the purchase, not the sale price. Isn’t it? So I calculated some random stats you might find interesting to prove that the Banks and Mortgage Companies don’t TOTALLY finance EVERY home purchase.

First I went to the high end and found that Seattle high end homes were financed at only 36% of value. That includes 40% of the randomly chosen properties sold in the last 3 or 4 months that were bought with cash and no mortgage at all. Mercer Island and high end Eastside, like Clyde Hill and Medina, financed at a higher rate of 49.5%. Both represented about $28 million dollars worth of homes purchased. Seattle financed $9,750,000 of their $28,000,000 purchase prices while Mercer Island, Clyde Hill and Medina financed $13,500,000 of their $28,000,000. Still plenty of equity though, so NO, the banks do not own the McMansions 🙂

One thing I found that was surprising to me up in the high end is that one of the most expensive homes sold was sold all cash…not surprising. The occupant at the time of sale was a tenant! That cracked me up. Why would someone rent a Six Million Dollar house? Oh, well…just a random observation.

Then a went down to the $475,000 to $500,000 price range, more in the median range and pulled through separate market segments. South Seattle was 90% financed. North Seattle was 85% financed and Eastside was only 70% financed. Why would the Eastside have more people with more money to put down on their homes? Easy. Cheap condos. The condo market was really cheap two to three years ago, and is still relatively cheap by Seattle standards. So people who bought those instead of renting 3 to 5 years ago had built up enough equity to put an average of 30% down on their single family home purchases.

Just random stats that I found interesting. The banks own 90% of South Seattle, 85% of North Seattle, 70% of Eastside and only 35%-50% of the most expensive homes. At least the ones that everyone who is reading King County median income/median home price stats are talking about, those bought recently.

Charts on a map

Posted on October 10, 2006 by Galen

From Altos Research. I couldn’t get the zip codes to work when I zoomed in.

Love thy Neighbor

Posted on October 9, 2006 by seattleeric

Here’s a humorous story that came through my inbox. I usually have very low expectations for forwarded jokes and other crap people send me, but the punchline on this one had me roaring, and literally, laughing out loud.

A city councilman, Mark Easton, lives in a Utah neighborhood. He had a beautiful view of the east mountains, until a new neighbor purchased the lot below his house and built. Apparently, the new home was 18 inches higher than the ordinances would allow, so Mark Easton, mad about his lost view, went to the city to make sure they enforced the lower roof line ordinance. Mark and his new neighbor had some great arguments about this as you can imagine – not great feelings. The new neighbor had to drop the roof line – no doubt at great expense.Recently, Mark Easton called the city and informed them that his new neighbor had installed some vents on the side of his home. Mark didn’t like the look of these vents and asked the city to investigate. When they went to Mark’s home to see the vent view, this is what they found…

After reading this, I honestly thought this story apocryphal. I am always skeptical of these stories, and immediately researched the validity of this story. It’s true! Here are a few links to learn more about it. From Snopes, the Urban Legend Site and on a blog, a local news video of the controversy.

There will never be a real estate bubble

Posted on October 9, 2006 by Galen

When Susan Ryan posted Just Say No To Bubble Talk, where she states “There is no real estate bubble and never will be” (emphasis mine), she probably wasn’t thinking of the traffic and links she would bring in through such blatant link baiting. But in one crazy statement, she swung for the fences and brought in over dozens and dozens of angry replies.

In a sort of a reverse of the Greg vs. Ardell 100-posts-in-24-hours contest, I propose a link baiting contest. Can you write the most outlandish post that warrants over 88 angry replies (current count) in the shortest period of time? Extra credit if you hit 100 in a day. The prize: an autographed photo of Jerry Falwell, a man who understood link baiting before the internet even existed.

The fine print: If a Rain City Guide member takes up the gauntlet, other co-bloggers (or “cloggers”) can only count for one angry reply (that means both of you Russ and Ardell!). You’re on your honor not to comment on your own posts or ask friends to do so. Any single angry responder can count for up to 5 comments, but after that you get no credit for making them angry.

I will take myself out of the running right now, as I don’t know enough about the gold standard to argue on its behalf or enough about the illegality of the IRS to argue against it.

Update: OK Folks, we’re done. Unless you have something to say that hasn’t been said, which includes almost all points of view on the real estate market, views on the writers of Rain City Guide or the writers and commenters at Seattle Bubble, and views on the intelligence or lack thereof of nearly everyone in the United States, lets move on. Do someting that makes you happy (and please, no comments about duking it out on a blog making you happy!). Please, no cheers, no jeers. Seriously. Move on.

The Wisdom of Crowds

Posted on October 7, 2006 by seattleeric

At a client conference in my last job, one of the keynote speakers was writer James Surowiecki, author of the book The Wisdom of Crowds. Pulling notes from his book, he made a compelling case that large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant; better at fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, and even predicting the future.

[photopress:crowds.jpg,full,alignright] The most fascinating example (and there were many) of this wisdom is in the investigation of a submarine that had sank and disappeared. The Navy had limited information regarding its location, and all searches came up empty. One smart fellow had the idea to consult a wide range of experts – in oceanography, ballistics, physics, engineering, etc., and ask them to come up with a probable location of the submarine. All the answers were collected and analyzed, and an ‘average’ location was charted based on the data. Chillingly, the sub was found within hundreds of yards of that location.

With large sample sizes, crowds form a network, and the best solutions bubble up from the collective thought. Though it sounds very Borg-like, we witness examples of it every day. The financial markets often sniff out trends and problems before they hit the front page. There is no collusion or any critical mass of explicit cooperation here – these trends are created by the cumulative wisdom of the market’s millions and millions of participants.

Which brings me to the potential wisdom of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s housing futures index created by Karl Case and Robert Shiller. Theoretically, this market would allow individual homeowners to hedge their investment by purchasing future contracts based on their metro level housing market. Let’s say I owned an apartment in NYC that is worth $1.5mm today. I could buy contracts that would pay me if the market dropped by 20%. I would effectively lock in a certain value for my property at a future date with these contracts.

If this concept takes off, the swings in the housing market would flatten considerably. If Joe homebuyer sees the contract prices that are based on next year’s housing values reflect a substantial drop, Joe homebuyer will be less likely to overpay for a property. Also, if Joe homebuyer could basically buy insurance against a large correction, the real economic impact of such corrections would be dampened by the payout of this ‘insurance’. However, Surowiecki has doubts that such a ‘wise crowd’ can materialize in the near future. As explained in a New Yorker article on this market, culture and habit matter as much as economic rationale. He writes:

“Even today, it’s clear that otherwise rational people harbor deep-seated beliefs that make housing futures a tough sell. People generally don’t hedge individual investments, because they don’t like to limit their potential gains in advance. That’s especially true when it comes to housing, because of the ingrained assumption that, over time, real estate is guaranteed to be an excellent investment—even though Shiller, in a recent book, shows that, allowing for inflation, American home prices barely budged during the twentieth century. In that sense, the housing-futures market has what is known as a framing problem: selling a contract seems like betting on housing prices to fall, rather than simply insuring yourself in case they do.”

This market debuted only about four months ago, so there is by no means any critical mass to it. It’s thinly traded, and it only offers futures on 10 US markets (Seattle is not one of them). Interestingly, the trading activity indicates a correction in the ten covered markets over the next year (with Denver showing the least downside). I would love to have had Seattle on the list. But, if trading activity increases, I would imagine that more markets would be added – and Seattle’s got to be high on that list.

Given that real estate is extremely localized (e.g. neighborhood by neighborhood), would a market that had critical mass (millions of contracts exchanged per day) be a driving force in the direction of a metropolitan market’s value? Would the average increase or decline be pretty darn close, even if street level values varied significantly block by block? My guess is that they would be extremely influential in how money moved in and out of the housing market. Such an efficient market would provide opportunity for long term homeowners to hedge their investments, speculators to make bets on the direction of the market, and renters to protect themselves from ‘missing out’ on appreciation.

In other words, many of the financial benefits of the American dream of homeownership could be had without ever buying a home. Take things a step further, and perhaps a fully matured and stable housing futures market would advance the dream of disintermediation further than Redfin or Housevalues could ever do. With good market info, long term home buyers wouldn’t have to worry so much about overpaying on a property if the market indicates a strong future value. Therefore, a precise valuation that an agent might be able to give versus that of an automated system may not worth the extra money it would cost in agent fees.

Blogging at Ed.Con 2006

Posted on October 5, 2006 by Dustin Luther

Yesterday, Russ Cofano and I gave another blogging seminar, this time in Seattle as part of Ed.con 2006 put on by the Washington Realtor Association.

[photopress:elvis_and_liberace.jpg,full,alignright]I thought the day went over really well and considering it was the first seminar we’d given to the “home town

Listing Jacking

Posted on October 5, 2006 by Galen

If you want a look at one possible future for the real estate world, read job jacking and replace every instance of job jacking with listing jacking and replace every job company with your favorite web-based real estate search companies. Sure, real estate isn’t quite so spread out, but it’s getting there.

I think it’s a silly complaint. People post jobs so they can find applicants and people list houses so they can find buyers. Most limits on where the jobs or houses are displayed are not in the interest of the lister.

The "Goldilocks" Principle

Posted on October 5, 2006 by ARDELL

[photopress:images_1.jpg,full,alignright] I know that applying the “Goldilocks Principle” puts me in the category of “hopeless utopian”, but hey, for one solid year, until December 31, 2006, I am going to stay in this thought mode.

I’ve tried various commissions with various people, and for the most part disregarded anything I’ve ever known, and everything that anyone has to say on the subject. I say “for the most part” because you really can’t erase your brain. But you can test and try varied options, just like Goldilocks rested herself on the three beds before deciding which one was “just right”.

I find that all of the rhetoric available on the topic is pretty much bunk. Reality is, it depends on the sale price/purchase price. I plan to do a “year in review” on 1/1/07, my blogging anniversary, to post my experiences and conclusions. But since this topic keeps coming up in the comments of various articles with everyone spouting out percentages, or flat fees, or hourly fees, etc., I thought I’d at least post that the results of my experiments are absolutely hinged to price of property.

The other reality is that my “awakening” with regard to commission issues started three months BEFORE I started blogging, and being in the Blogosphere really isn’t what turned my head with regard to commission issues. What turned my head was when I, myself, purchased a house for $850,000 with $59,500 of commission issues plus $22,000 of other credit issues thrown into the mix. Trust me. There is no question in my mind that I, the buyer, am the one paying for that whole $81,500 in my mortgage payment. I’m not complaining. I structured everything that way for a reason. But overnight I realized that the buyer pays the commission…no question.

I also realized that it didn’t bother me on the 10-12 properties I purchased before this one. So price of house does matter. The experience revolutionized my whole thought process with regard to real estate commissions. Nothing causes you to “get real” more than putting yourself into the equation, and experiencing it personally, from the inside out. So for now, I’m trusting my own judgment and using “The Goldilocks Principle” when determining the fairness of commissions. A full year of experiments, and then I’ll come out the other side and see where I’ve been and which feel “just right”, which were too high and which were just not enough.

For now…price matters is the key, and almost none of the discussions anywhere, focus on different fees for different home prices. So basically, they are ALL wrong.