« Do you *really* believe in the Pareto Principle? | Main | Islam and prosperity, part II »

Real (Estate) Rent Seeking

The Justice Department may file suit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to prevent them from excluding discount brokers from access to the regional MLS systems.  I'm hardly a fan of antitrust but the market for realtors is a racket.  Six percent to sell a house?  Outrageous!

Putting aside the outrage the market for realtors is terribly wasteful.  Consider, house prices are much higher in California than in Idaho but commissions are stable at around six percent.  Thus, even though the realtor's job, brokering a deal, is the same in California as in Idaho, a realtor in California will make much more per-house.  As a result, there are far too many realtors in California and many of them will spend an entire year selling only a handful of houses.  Indeed, many realtor's spend most of their time prospecting for clients rather than actually selling houses - this is a huge waste of resources. 

The same relationship holds over time as over space.  That is, when house prices go up we don't see a fall in commission rates.  Instead, we see more entry.  Since the same number of houses are being bought and sold, the extra realtors don't make the buyer or seller better off and sadly the realtors aren't better off either - instead the excess return is siphoned off in wasteful prospecting for clients.

Unfortunately, no one really understands why commissions are stable.  The answer is not monopoly.  It's very easy to enter the market for realtors.  So why don't commissions fall?  One can certainly point to some restrictive practices by the NAR but I don't think that is the whole or even the major part of the story.

A clue to the puzzle is that we also see stable commission rates in law (contingency fees) and in services (tipping).  Why is the appropriate tip 15% at an expensive restaurant and at a cheap restaurant?  Does the tuxedoed waiter really have a harder job than the diner waitress?  Maybe (indeed, I have argued along these lines elsewhere) but the commonality across these very different markets tells me something else is going on.

Is it signaling?  Would you distrust a realtor offering lower commissions?  Again, maybe, but it's hard to believe that with so much money at stake there aren't enough people willing to take a risk on a discount realtor for long enough for reputations to be established.  I think part of the problem in the realtor market is that other realtors can easily discriminate against discount brokers by pushing their clients one way or the other - that says the antitrust actions will probably not be very effective.  But this doesn't explain stable commissions in law or waiting.

It's a puzzle and one worth solving.  Comments are open.

Posted by Alex Tabarrok on May 10, 2005 at 07:11 AM in Economics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3576/2427485

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Real (Estate) Rent Seeking:

» The 6% Solution from In Lehmann's Terms
Alex has his Canadian dander up aboot real estate commissions: The Justice Department may file suit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to prevent them from excluding discount brokers from access to the regional MLS systems. [Read More]

Tracked on May 10, 2005 2:33:45 PM

» The 6% Solution from In Lehmann's Terms
Alex has his Canadian dander up aboot real estate commissions: The Justice Department may file suit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to prevent them from excluding discount brokers from access to the regional MLS systems. [Read More]

Tracked on May 10, 2005 3:03:29 PM

» Antitrust versus Guilding: The Real Estate Conundrum from A Stitch in Haste
The (possible) housing bubble is having an unintended consequence: increased scrutiny of real estate broker commissions ( [Read More]

Tracked on May 10, 2005 3:45:51 PM

» For Sale by Owner from xcountrymove
To FSBO or not to FSBO, that really is the question. Before you can move across the country, you need to sell your house, that is, if you own a home. I think most people who sell a home wonder if they could sell their house by owner. After all, who ... [Read More]

Tracked on May 13, 2005 12:06:33 AM

» The Alabama Realtor Protection Law from A Bama Blog
Anyone who has ever bought or sold a house knows just what kind of harrowing and expensive experience it can be. Along with the phenomenal increase in house prices in recent years, the transaction fees associated with sales have also increased, pa... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 18, 2005 3:48:02 AM

» The 6% Solution from In Lehmann's Terms
Alex has his Canadian dander up aboot real estate commissions: The Justice Department may file suit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to prevent them from excluding discount brokers from access to the regional MLS systems. I'm hardly a [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 22, 2006 1:12:56 PM

» The 6% Solution from In Lehmann's Terms
Alex has his Canadian dander up aboot real estate commissions: The Justice Department may file suit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to prevent them from excluding discount brokers from access to the regional MLS systems. I'm hardly a [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 22, 2006 1:30:36 PM

» The 6% Solution from In Lehmann's Terms
Alex has his Canadian dander up aboot real estate commissions: The Justice Department may file suit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to prevent them from excluding discount brokers from access to the regional MLS systems. I'm hardly a [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 22, 2006 2:02:17 PM

» Advanced MP3 Catalog Download from MP3 Catalog
Download advanced mp3 catalog pro Advanced MP3 Catalog is designed for anyone ... Generate and print reports and CD covers, export your catalog, search for ... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 25, 2006 2:38:26 AM

Comments

WRT realtors, I think you've nailed it. Waitresses? Call it rational ignorence. I don't want to think about how much to tip, I just want to do the safe thing and leave. Lawyers? That's signaling. Lawyers are competitive, and the stakes are always high. Nobody wants a discount lawyer any more than they want a discount army.

Posted by: Mike at May 10, 2005 8:20:06 AM

It's a pure social convention and one that will fall apart some day (possibly soon). Not so long ago one could have made these "signalling" arguments suggesting that you wouldn't want a discount broker.

Posted by: dsquared at May 10, 2005 8:37:34 AM

If one real estate agency lowers their commission rate, the others will have to match it, and they will all hate the first agency to cut the rates.

Somebody needs to be the hero (to the buyers of homes, not their agents) and start the process. Everyone will follow.

Posted by: Michael H. at May 10, 2005 8:52:07 AM

I forgot to mention that setting these commissions is a classic Bertrand competition. In practice, the players know there is no point in getting into a price war because all of the players will lose.

Posted by: Michael H. at May 10, 2005 8:58:40 AM

I think a lot of it is just uneducated consumers. Commissions are negotiable. However, the Realtors spend a lot of money promoting the idea that buying or selling a house is a complicated procedure that requires the assistance of a licensed agent. They have been using aggressive marketing for years to artificially inflate prices. It happens in other industries too, but the Realtors as a group have been very successful at it.

Posted by: Chris at May 10, 2005 9:07:45 AM

I think a big part of it is that the seller pays the entire 6% commission. Thus the selling agent (the buyer's agent) has no incentive to lower their commission because they are not cutting their own client's a break -> it won't attract customers nor referrels. So the buyer's themselves don't have much of an incentive to "be the hero" in this case, and nor do the selling agents.

Posted by: Amanda A. at May 10, 2005 9:15:24 AM

I think Michael H is on to something above. It's like those "we'll beat any price in town by 10%" deals that electronics stores have. Well, every store has the deal, so nobody cuts prices.

Posted by: Timothy at May 10, 2005 9:17:11 AM

Maybe the persistence of 6% has something to do with the perceptual gap between going the "for sale by owner" FSBO route and being willing to pay the full 6%. That is, you either see "all the value" of hiring a realtor and paying for it, or you see none of it, and decide to go it alone. The people who currently see only maybe the value of 3% in a realtor must have a pretty easy time making the decision to pay all or nothing.

Posted by: Matt at May 10, 2005 9:27:20 AM

Or, the people who see the value of 3% go to Foxtons, which in my neighborhood (NJ) advertises their 3% commissions extensively, and seems to have plenty of clients.

Posted by: Nicholas Weininger at May 10, 2005 9:48:21 AM

Amanda's argument is very persuasive. There ARE discount brokers out there (in the Washington area think Samson and the one who's signs have a Cardinal). However, there is a big downside to using them, namely buyers agents are much less likely to show a house where they only get a 2% Commisison. Since the prices are posted it makes enforcing the cartel highly effective. More importantly, since the buyers have no incentive to ask for a lower price from their agent you don't get the normal desire to cheat that undermines most other cartels. This gets right back to Amanda's principle agent problem.

Perhaps there is also a behavioral explanation. Specifically, in markets where prices have gone way up (and therefore Commissions have gone up) are also markets where people have a lot of equity in their house. If people do not perceive these assets as being as fully their"s as say cash in the bank they might be willing to give some of this money to a realtor rather than take the time to shop for the lowest price.

Posted by: Michael W at May 10, 2005 9:52:06 AM

Not to mention that not everyone pays 6% even for full service. I recently sold my house and paid 4.5% to an excellent full service realtor. Part of the difference may be that informally-connected clients can get better rates than those who just walk in off the street, so to speak; my realtor is a local specialist and I was referred to him by neighbors who'd been happy with him when selling their house. Part of it may also be the effect of Foxtons in the area, though.

Posted by: Nicholas Weininger at May 10, 2005 9:54:18 AM

Most Americans are too accustomed to fixed-price, non-haggling business relationships. Car buying nicely illustrates this point: it's one of the few commercial transactions in which it is generally accepted that some haggling is going to take place -- and we find this very stressful!

So when a home seller meets with a prospective seller's agent, he isn't going to say, "6% is too much. How about 4%?"

I wonder if it has something to do with an overly P.C. culture that doesn't want to insult someone by requesting that he lower the asking price for his services.

Posted by: Brian St. Pierre at May 10, 2005 10:31:40 AM

When we were haggling over a certain house, the broker offered to sacrifice part of his commission to bring the price down. Alas for him, we decided that even the reduced price wasn't worth dealing with the problems the inspector had found in the house.

It's a lot easier for a broker to make this kind of offer when he's starting from a 6% commission.

Posted by: Seth Gordon at May 10, 2005 10:42:08 AM

You say the seller pays the commission? In Australia commissions are (at least were when I lived there) just over 1%, in Germany 5.75% and the difference in that case was easy to explain. In Germany the buyer paid the commission and as he wanted a particular property and as the the agent had sole rights he had no bargaining power. In Germany cuts in the sale price are negotiated from the price the seller receives. In Australia where there are are several chains of agents with offices in every shopping center who list for the whole metropolitan area the seller can shop around for the best deal. I'm not sure of the US situation but I think it must be related to market structure. If sellers negotiate with one of several large chains before listing then I'm sure the price would come down dramatically.

Posted by: Jim Brady at May 10, 2005 10:46:43 AM

WRT tipping in restaurants: I have noticed that many waiters/waitresses working in expensive restaurants make a living out of their job, while the same is not true for those who work in many "inexpensive" restaurants (could it be a self fulfilling prophecy: On the one hand, inexpensive restaurants might not support the (tipping-) income required to support oneself; hence, waiters/waitresses working in these restaurants cant make a living out of their job. On the other hand, one could argue that the lower per customer (tipping-) income earned in inexpensive restaurants would be compensated by the increased traffic in these restaurants, thereby providing (tipping-) income similar to that of expensive restaurants on a total income basis. Yes, increased traffic equals more work!!!). Given my observation, and since the waiters/waitresses make the bulk of their wages from the tips they receive, I tend to tip more than 15% when I dine in expensive restaurants. Should I change my strategy?

Posted by: Madan at May 10, 2005 11:31:11 AM

The main points to me that hold up the high commissions are the talked about "price fixing" perpetrated in part by the powerful NAR (Michael H's point), the by buyers and sellers themselves being too inhibited to negotiate (Brian St. Pierre's point), and the unrealized gains in equity (that the seller does not actually see in the bank, as pointed out by Michael W).

Another way to look at it though, is that actually the buyer is paying the commission, out of the funds he pays for the home. So without an agent, say s/he pays $300K for a home, but with an agent s/he pays $310K for the home. That is more money s/he must finance. There is often a (or a perception of) "premium" for the agencies built into the prices (and in no way is this defending the high commission price). So in that sense, a buyer's agent could have incentive to cut her/her commission for their client to buy at a lower price, although this is rarely communicated to the buyer (for obvious reasons). The argument could go either way as to who actually "pays" the commission, and in reality it is seen more as a balance between the buyer and seller (often you see this in transactions with no agents involved, with the buyer and seller equally dividing the commission savings).

Posted by: Jako at May 10, 2005 11:36:40 AM

First: in the US generally, real-estate commissions are split between the seller's agent and the buyer's agent, and are paid by the seller out of the proceeds of the sale.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, 5% (total) and even occasional 4% commissions are becoming more common on properties over $700,000; 6% is rare on houses over $1,000,000. That's a pretty big chunk of the market in several counties here. So there's some price fall.

In the current market, the seller's agent is making an inordinate amount of money for the work they do, as all that really needs to be done is to draw up some standard forms, list the house on the MLS for less than one thinks it will go for, set out a lockbox key, hold an open house or two, and choose from multiple offers.

The buyer's agent, on the other hand, even if they don't offer chauffer services to look at houses, will still have to visit several houses to gain entry (using the lockbox left by the seller's agent), likely prepare several offers before one is accepted, and obtain entry for the buyer or buyer's inspectors during the (rather short) inspection process.

The quality of real-estate agents vary widely. In my housebuying experience, and working woth my girlfriend who's buying an investment property, I've met a number of agents, maybe one in four of whom seemed reasonably competent and informed. Quite frequently, the agent showing a house at an open house is not the listing agent, but a junior agent at the brokerage, prospecting for buyers. A good agent might actually deserve their 3%, but there are some who should pay for the privilege of representing me.

As to waiters, the fixed tip creates a career ladder: one starts working in cheap restaurants, and as one is ready to move up, one gets a job with a more expensive, and thus better-tipped, restaurant. In theory, the more expensive restaurants have more attentive and better service; in practice, they have more consistently good service, and better-looking servers.

Posted by: Anthony Argyriou at May 10, 2005 11:51:09 AM

Also - there's a huge conflict of interest for buyer's agents with the way commissions are structured. A seller's agent has incentive to maximize the price the house sells for, which is also to the seller's benefit, but a buyer's agent also has incentive to maximize the price paid. In a "hot" market, this can take the form of encouraging overbidding for properties, but even in slow markets, there's a quaint custom called "credit back at closing" when, for example, an inspection reveals a problem not obvious, and the buyer would rather receive a price adjustment than require the seller to fix the problem. Rather than lowering the sale price, there is a "credit towards closing costs" which has the effect of reducing the buyer's actual expenditure, while preserving the agents' commissions and keeping the property taxes higher. (Particularly in California, where property is only reassessed at sale or for significant construction.)

Posted by: Anthony Argyriou at May 10, 2005 12:14:39 PM

As noted above the buyer has no incentive to shop around for lower commisions, so the question is why don't sellers haggle for lower commisions. I think that the answer is since selling a house is something that a person does rarely, but involves a large amount of money, they want to feel that they are getting the best. If a good agent could get you an extra 10 grand for your house, your not going to begrudge them a couple of grand in commissions. Since it is hard to judge how good an agent is unless you sell a good amount of homes, going with the full commission agent seems like the safe bet. After all, if the discount agent is so good, why is he charging so little?

Posted by: sourcreamus at May 10, 2005 12:43:40 PM

The seller may consider it disadvantageous to bargain over the commission because other sellers are agreeing to a full 6%. Your house is only one of many the agent is trying to sell. If the agent is getting 5% (or 2 1/2%) from your deal and 6% (or 3%) from others she may not give your house the same effort she gives others. My impression is that realtors tend to concentrate on houses in certain price ranges, and if so the same factor could be at work.

Another possible explanation is that, since there are so many brokers, sellers will often choose one who is a personal acquaintance, making it awkward to try to negotiate the "standard" commission down.

If any of that's right, then discount firms could be successful, as apparently they are in some areas, because the seller does not have these concerns.

That said, it is possible sometimes to negotiate the commission. I think it is not uncommon in commercial transactions.

Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at May 10, 2005 1:01:12 PM

I usually tip >20% at cheap restaurants (eg. Thai, Chinese, Chili's) and rarely more than 16% at expensive ones, even less if I get wine. I feel especially bad for the recent immigrants that probably get to serve 3 or 4 tables an hour at these tiny places sprinkled all over L.A.

I agree that real estate agents are infuriating. Hopefully it will become more commonplace to negotiate rates - there's certainly no lack of supply!

Posted by: Paul N at May 10, 2005 1:21:57 PM

I have the very strong impression that in a hot market, like Washington DC, full-service real estate agents regularly go below the 6% even while maintaining an official policy that they will not. Since people don't buy houses very often, they may well be relatively successful in maintaining the perception that 6% is the norm.

Posted by: Erik at May 10, 2005 1:46:35 PM

The average real estate commission, nationwide, was 5.1% in 2003. It's been below 6% for more than a decade, and dropped appreciably as the housing market heated up. Furthermore, in the higher end of the market, commissions have always been lower, fee-for-service is more common, and many listings are nonexclusive, just as is the standard in the commercial market.

Posted by: R.J. Lehmann at May 10, 2005 2:24:36 PM

I took part in a small scale antitrust investigation of real estate broker's commissions as a lawyer working for the Federal Trade Commission in the mid or late 1970s. I don't think it ever produced any cases, however.

I believe that, as an adjunct to the investigation, the FTC economics division held a conference and commissioned papers on real estate brokerage from a bunch of academic economists. I think Lewis Wilde was one. I would imagine they were published as an FTC document of some kind.

On the substantive point, my sense at the time was that it was easier to maintain a realtors cartel than might appear from the relative ease of entry because such a high percentage of sales are done cooperatively and because some realtors tend to acquire locally dominant positions in particular neighborhoods. I don't know if these ideas would stand up under careful theortical analysis and empirical testing.

One other question I had at the time was whether some higher than zero commission rate is optimal from the seller's point of view because a broker's sales activities cannot be easily monitored but might increase the price or reduce the time a house is on the market. A percentage commission might then act as an incentive and, up to a point, a higher commission might be better. I believe there is a lot of relevant economic literature on incentive payment schemes, but I don't know if anyone has applied it to real estate commissions.

Posted by: Martin at May 10, 2005 2:41:39 PM

I think signalling is the main problem, both here and in a very large number of economic situations. Price signalling is probably the main cause of inefficiency in service/information economics, and appears to me to be a VERY serious barrier to the real economic growth in wealthy nations.

Posted by: michael vassar at May 10, 2005 3:05:45 PM

Martin - I would definitely want to put a sales agent who was not a close friend on a percentage commission, though not 6% unless the market gets much tougher for sellers than it is now.

R.J.Lehmann - over what population is that average? If sales by owner are included in the average, then the zero-commission sales pull the average commission down.

There's an outfit here in the Bay Area which advertises that they'll do all the work which a sales agent can do which a homeowner can't easily (contracts, MLS listing, ads) for a flat $7000. Technically, those sales are "sale by owner".

Buyers agents have access to the amount of commission offered by the seller - it's part of the MLS data which is not supposed to be shown to clients. Buyers' agents can thus steer clients away from low-commission houses. However, websites like Realtor.com give buyers more access to information which used to be the preserve of real-estate agents, which reduces the disadvantage of discount brokers. Frequently, sales agents will put an MLS printout in an open house as a flyer, sometimes they forget to print only the "public" information, which gives potential buyers even more information.

Posted by: Anthony Argyriou at May 10, 2005 3:38:04 PM

The figure does not include either FSBOs or flat-fee services. It is an accounting of commissions charged by brokers in those transactions where the seller is represented by a broker who charges commissions. And it is from REAL Trends, which gathers data for real estate firms. I'd link directly to the data, but their products are now all subscription only. The figures are, however, widely reported in the real estate trade press, if you wanted to do a search for them.

Posted by: R.J. Lehmann at May 10, 2005 3:44:21 PM

Here's a Miami Herald article from two years ago on one of REAL Trends' surveys:

http://www.philly.com/mld/miamiherald/living/home/5923345.htm

Posted by: R.J. Lehmann at May 10, 2005 3:49:41 PM

When I bought a house in US I was shocked by the 7% commission the seller's agent was getting. Living in the Netherlands, I was used to commissions around 1 to 2%, although both sellers and buyers pay them. If you know what house you want to buy, you can often negiotate them down to below 1%. When it comes to selling my house in the US, I'll certainly be negotiating the commission down myself.

Posted by: qsi at May 10, 2005 4:06:26 PM

Anthony touched on a problem not often mentioned; the MLS system itself. It is what forms the basis of what is essentially a cartel mainly by creating a very high barrier to entry and hiding some information from both buyers and sellers. Another factor not often mentioned is government regulation which results in a horribly thick stack of paperwork that leaves an individual feeling helpless.

If the government were to reduce and/or simplify regulations on real estate transactions and there was complete transparency in those transactions, I believe the commission costs would drop.

(Don't forget the myriad of other costs piled onto a home sale, many of which are absurd in price if not type.)

Posted by: Joe at May 10, 2005 4:46:54 PM

Asymetrical information on the part of buyers and sellers? A gentleman's agreement? Brokers who violate the custom and charge lower prices are harshly punished by other brokers (who maybe refuse to deal with them or even send them death threats)?

As an investor, one has to love the way the internet has brought down brokerage commissions.

Posted by: Half Sigma at May 10, 2005 4:56:20 PM

In my previous post I meant brokerage commissions for buying stocks. It used to be that a "full service" broker got a 3% commission, which is an incredible rip-off because all the stock broker does is call people on the phone all day trying to drum up business.

Obviously, brokerage commissions for buying and selling houses haven't been impacted much by the internet.

Posted by: Half Sigma at May 10, 2005 5:02:20 PM

Can we please dispense with the silly notion that "The seller pays the commission"? The price is endogenous, folks.

Posted by: Don at May 10, 2005 6:35:18 PM

Most people who are selling or buying homes are moronic...and their wives are no better. Realtors have to listen to really stupid statements all day long and pretend to agree with them...and smile. This is crap work and they deserve every penny they get. (and yes, I'm a realtor).

Posted by: joe gibson at May 10, 2005 7:26:47 PM

I recall from my basic econ classes that there are two types of markets that end up with competitors charging the same price. One is collusion, which I can tell you as a REALTOR is not happening in the real estate industry. The other is perfect competition. What's the mystery?

Posted by: Tom Hanna at May 10, 2005 7:53:39 PM

I have to agree with Tom Hanna, I'm guessing that the commission rates (often it's 6% on the first $100K, then declines as the sale price increases) are the result of competition driving the rate down to that.

Discount brokers and Let-Us-Help-You-Sell-Your-Home-Yourself schemes don't really succeed well. They've been around for decades.

Since most sales split the commission 50-50 between seller and buyer agents that makes a six per cent commission only 3% for each realtor. Which is further split between the employer and employee.

Manufacturer Reps in other industries get between 5-10%. Commission salesmen usually earn about 10% of their annual sales. Selling Real Estate is a lot more complicated than selling most things. A good agent will know a lot more about the market than either a buyer or seller. He'll probably know about sources of financing too.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at May 10, 2005 8:37:10 PM

I'll agree that good agents deserve the money they make (on a "normal" sales price), but the problem (at least in the California market) is that the industry has been flooded with people looking to make an "easy buck" and who more or less do not know what they are doing, just plain not good at their job and/or don't care enough to put forth the proper effort. With little or no training or certification needed to become an agent, and commission only pay structures (encouraging brokers to hire just about anyone), it is not hard to get into the business.

Posted by: Jako at May 10, 2005 9:05:42 PM

Although MLS is a part of it, I would guess this is closer to the plantiff's bar, where there is a more less fixed take of 33-40% of extortion that is welched from, excuse me I let my prejudice show. Anyway, you would think that the % take would vary with the quality of the claim and the track record of the lawyer.

When I've dealt with home transactions without a broker I find that the other party wants half of the 6% savings passed on to them, so the savings are slight. With the market uniformily offering 3% to the agent bringing the buyer, any lower rate will be boycotted by the buyer's agents.

Posted by: Larry at May 10, 2005 10:24:07 PM

In a residential real estate transaction there are three parties of interest: buyer, seller and agent. The agent has the least to lose and the most to gain. Given a 6 percent commission, if a $500,000 house sells for $450,000, the agent's commission drops from $30,000 to $27,000 and the agent has no risk. It's in the agent's best interest to complete a transaction. If you paid an agent $100 an hour, the agent would have to work more than seven weeks to earn $30,000. I realize there is overhead involved here but the value just isn't there.

Posted by: Welfare Bob at May 11, 2005 2:58:21 AM

Isn't is odd that the commission is based on a percentage of the total sales price? This means that the seller's agent will get roughly the same commission even if he of she could work a little harder and sell it for a little more. The incentive to do the extra work is not there.
The listing agent will much rather sell 12 homes at $390K than 10 homes at $410K so he or she will want to list the house at modest price in order to sell it quickly. The agent isn't at all motivated to get the best price for the seller- except for perhaps reputation building.

Posted by: Michael H. at May 11, 2005 3:00:15 AM

Yes, yes, thank you, Steve Levitt. While I don't disagree with his contention that incentives for listing agents to maximize home prices would be more powerful if they were more clearly value-added (perhaps a 1% commission on the home's last fair market appraisal, combined with a 50% commission on dollar one above that) the notion that the current incentive system is especially perverse is, I think, a little weak.

For one thing, the argument makes it sound like the difference between selling 12 listings and selling 10 is somehow a factor of how much time, love, and tenderness went into each one, and that's just not the case. Realtors don't WAIT to get their next listing until after they've sold their last one. You could have 12 listings at once, followed by months with no listings at all. Most of the drudgery goes into the procuring of new listings, and you will likely sell every one you get. Advertising costs are borne by the broker, not the agent, so that's not a concern, and as long as the home is in the MLS, there will be swarms of agents -- both from within and without your agency -- who will bring in potential buyers. If a seller wanted to sell his home at $410k, then even if the listing agent thought it would sell more quickly at $390k, it requires no real extra effort to put it on the market at the higher price, sit back, and see what happens.

So, really, while the listing agent may not have an especially strong incentive to get the maximum possible price, nor does he have an especially strong incentive to sell a property quickly. On the other hand, sellers often DO have incentive for a quick sale. Most sellers are also BUYERS, and they usually want to coordinate the sale of their own home with the purchase of another. Levitt's study showing that realtors are more likely to leave their homes on the market longer, it seems to me, strongly suggests that realtors are more likely to bring a patient and disciplined approach to the process. Most sellers do not.

Posted by: R.J. Lehmann at May 11, 2005 7:04:30 AM

Six percent seems reasonable to me. The normal break down is the commission is split equally four ways between the listing agent, the lister's firm, the selling agent and the selling agent's firm. If the listing agent and the selling agent are from the same firm then the fee is very negotiable. If they are competing firms then the fee is less negotiable. I have bought and sold many houses using realtors and thought their fees were reasonable. Based on the amount of work done by a realtor it is worth it for me to use realtors and pay their fees. The best solution to lower fees is to lower all taxes and regulation - but that's a different discussion.

Posted by: J S Hill at May 11, 2005 8:33:19 AM

I had a personal experience with the "non-collusion" of realtors. Tried to sell our house ourselves, got it listed on the MLS, and had a parade of realtors come through... without clients. Three months pass, we get it listed with a realtor-- who did absolutely nothing-- and the same realtors came through with clients. Other FSBOs have shared this experience. In spite of guaranteeing a commission to the buyers' agent, there was no desire on the part of the realtors to give business to the FSBO.

Many of the realtors, of course, tried to sell me their services. I asked what value they would add. More than one cited the many customers they were helping find a home(none of who they were bringing by-- collusion, anyone?). One spent a long time pointing out that she would also help find a new home. I pointed out that by not showing her current customers all the available properties (e.g., mine), she was demonstrating that she didn't look out for her customers' best interests.

It's a slimy industry. I would never accuse every member of being slimy, but I met enough who lied to my face about their business that it left me with a horrible taste in my mouth.

The model for commissions should be sellers' agents getting a much larger percentage of the amount above the assessment. Maybe 15% of the sales price above assessment. And the buyers' agents should get a flat fee based on the assessment (or perhaps even a decreasing percentage).

Thank goodness the auto sales industry has evolved. Last purchase, I used several buyers' services and ample online info to find the best deal in our region. Then I took that price down the street and said "the sale is yours if you can meet this price." Answer: "yes." Total research: maybe 1/2 hour. Total haggling: 3 seconds.

Posted by: Mike M at May 11, 2005 10:42:07 AM

"...if a $500,000 house sells for $450,000, the agent's commission drops from $30,000 to $27,000 and the agent has no risk."

No, if you're talking about the listing agent (seller's agent) it would be half that amount to the real estate brokerage, and then half (usually) of that to the individual who procured the listing. I.e. 1-1/2% or $6,750. But, for $500K houses, the commission is likely to be something like 6% on the first $250K, and 4% on the rest.

And the figure isn't income, as the agent will incur some expenses representing the seller. Of course, the buyer's agent will incur greater expense making the sale, and every savvy agent wants to get listings rather than make sales. I'd say a buyer's agent needs to make a sale a month of a $450K home to eke out a living.

For the brokerage, overhead can be significant as you usually need lots of small neighborhood offices. I think many of you are underestimating the costs of doing business.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at May 11, 2005 12:09:51 PM

"In spite of guaranteeing a commission to the buyers' agent..."

I'm not sure just how you'd do that. The buyer's agent only gets a commission if he makes the sale, but the listing agent gets a guaranteed commission IF the house sells. And, typically those listings are good for only a defined period of time. You can have your listing expire if the asking price is too high.

Your story is consistent with a competitive market, more than a collusive one. You didn't sell your house in the first three months because you put out poor incentives.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at May 11, 2005 12:16:47 PM

Patrick R.,
Your reasons for why the real-estate market is charging a fair price for their services does not explain why there are many other countries where they provide the same services for a much lesser sum.

Posted by: Battlepanda at May 11, 2005 12:44:46 PM

"Competitive entry" looks easy because "agents" enter easily. But at least around here (Seattle) agents mostly affiliate with brokerages, of which there are only 5 or 6 big ones, all of which take a fixed portion of agents' commissions. It may be hard for hundreds of agents to collude, but the small number of powerful brokerages form a cartel just fine.

Posted by: Victor at May 11, 2005 3:14:34 PM

While we're at it, note that stress on the 6% cartel is producing exactly the predictable response: attempts by 6%'s to get state gov'ts and quasi-governmental "industry standards bodies" to enforce the cartel. Of course this is pure rent seeking. I'm impressed that the FTC is fighting it, though while FTC can sue NAR, I don't know what legal pressure FTC can bring against State agencies. Under current law (I don't agree with it, I'm just reporting it) States can enforce cartels all they like, with some truly minor exceptions like black hair braiders.

Posted by: Victor at May 11, 2005 3:18:50 PM

Make what you will of this:
I've purchased three homes in the past 15 year. Each time I represented myself (I an not an agent.) In each case there was a bidding war. In each case the party I was bidding against had an agent. Each time the seller's agent steered the seller to me, there by avoiding a split commission. Coincidnce? I think not.

If an agent sells a $500,000 home for 5 percent commission ($25,000) that equates to more than six weeks (assuming a 40-hour work week) at $100 an hour. Does anyone believe that -- even after overhead is deducted -- the services of agents in general is worth that level of compensation?

If it's efficienct you want, a Craig's List type of MLS is the way to go and let each party hire the apporpriate professional assistence needed to perform the due diligence.

Posted by: Welfare Bob at May 11, 2005 3:30:25 PM

"Your reasons for why the real-estate market is charging a fair price for their services does not explain why there are many other countries where they provide the same services for a much lesser sum."

We'd need to know a lot about the legal and regulatory environment, about other countries labor markets, and a host of other things.

Btw, I didn't say anything about a 'fair' price. I'm merely pointing out that straight commissioned sales people working all kinds of odd hours, who pay their own expenses, generating $81,000 a year, is not my idea of outlandish compensation.

I'm sure that State Real Estate regulations do limit competition somewhat, but I'm also sure that the Justice Dept won't be focusing their anti-trust investigations on that.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at May 11, 2005 6:56:11 PM

Hi Patrick,

The 6% commission doesn't make a real estate agent's annual income higher -- it makes the income per transaction higher. But there's (mostly) free entry. So many real estate agents spend much time and money trying to find new clients, rather than, y'know, doing what those clients hire them to do. Like lobbyists, it's completely rational behavior, but it's also inefficient. I get at least two postcards a month from agents asking me if I'm thinking about moving.

The real stumper is why the 'competitive' fee for services is straight 6% commission, since much of the actual time/effort spent seems orthogonal to the size of the deal. Are the incentive problems that great -- wouldn't a flat fee plus 1% align incentives sufficiently? Particularly on the buyer's agent's side -- it's not at all clear why that person's on commission.

Posted by: Don at May 14, 2005 2:52:47 PM

Realtors/Agents/Brokers haven't done a good enough job maintaining their professional reputation - compare with other professional esp. medical and engineering. And their collective reputation is suffering. Quite a lot of complaints in recent years.

Now it has escalated. Again, collectively, realtors/agents/brokers have not done a good enough job POLICING themselves, removing the bad apples.

So, now we will have to do it for them.

Charges will be filed later this year.

"Justice Dept."

Posted by: Justice Dept. at Jun 7, 2005 1:21:43 PM

Battlepanda,

You are wondering why this country charges more than others? What is your profession and how much are you paid? I guarantee it's more than any other country. This country pays it's people more than any other country in the world. The poverty line for this country is above the average wage for the rest of the world combined.

Posted by: Joe at Jun 8, 2005 4:45:02 PM

As a real estate agent, I can say that:
1. For listings 6% commission is a little steep, but at 5%, you are normally giving the buyers agent over half of your commission (2.7% is normal in MN)
2. I wouldn't wish a close without an agent from the buy or the sell side, on anyone. There is more to the transaction than getting the purchase agreements and having the sellers pick the best one. Trust me, that money is earned, and your agent won't be keeping all of it.(brokerage, admin fees, NAR dues, continuing education, local association fees, sign service, etc.)
3. My experience in the real estate industry has given me the impression that on the whole, a remarkable majority of those involved in the industry are horribly incompentent and unprofessional. This includes not only agents, but financing people, closers, title people, etc. The agent usually bears the brunt of this crap, and ends up looking bad no matter who screws up.
4. This incompence and unprofessionalism is not much more than what I've seen from most salespeople. Seriously, hit yourself on the head until you don't know how to spell your last name, and you can be a salesperson! From what I've seen in the US, is that the best way to make the big bucks, and fast, is in sales.
5. The reason the majority of the industry is unprofessional and incompetent is that the market is glutted full of those searching for the easy buck. Once the market settles, the shakedown will begin, only the strong will survive, and people will work for their 6%.

Posted by: woozy at Jun 15, 2005 1:10:06 AM

Could some one enlighten me as to what is the higest commission a Real Estate Agent has made in any one given year from 1980 to say 2005? I dont want to know names...just in terms of achievement what could one make? And what would those Salespersons say would have been their magic formula for success? Please respond....thanks....

Any help would be welcome!

Posted by: Don at The Trumped up Plaza at Aug 10, 2005 11:24:43 PM

In my area and for the first time, we've seen a good bit negotiation with regard to realtor commissions.

Posted by: Scott Wiles at Aug 11, 2005 2:35:04 PM

http://www.archerfitness.com/wwwboard/messages/22401.shtml mattordealskirt

Posted by: noon at Sep 7, 2005 1:17:43 AM

http://credit.ycba.org/checker/ spankswitchboardtoed

Posted by: fiercely at Sep 11, 2005 3:22:59 AM

http://erotic.redclouds.com/jasmine/messages/2491.html condemedlockingprotect

Posted by: keeps at Sep 25, 2005 5:58:47 PM

http://drskateboard.com/wwwboard/messages/16975.html complimentwhosewondered

Posted by: tears at Oct 2, 2005 6:34:56 AM

http://sawiin.descom.es/sceens/ace.html clothinggamessickening

Posted by: cooling at Nov 12, 2005 10:59:46 PM

Commissions have always been negotiable and therefore should not be legislated by the NAR. In addition, you are correct about both the stability of commissions as well as the barriers to entry into the real estate market. There will be a lot of change over the next few years as REALTORs change their service model from a necessity to a complimentary consultancy.

-Randy
www.4mysales.com

Posted by: Randall Wilson at Feb 9, 2006 2:56:47 AM

The comments I've read so far are absolutely mind-boggling. First of all, people who are not in real estate think that all realtors are alike. This is ridiculous. The realtors Experience, skills, education, support systems, etc. are all different. So, why do you lump them all into one group. An experienced teacher gets paid more than one who is not tenured yet. The best doctors and lawyers all get paid more than others in their field. The question is not whether realtors are worth 6%, but did the homeowner selling their house interview correctly. A truly professional realtor can easily get a homeowner much more money through increased marketing exposure and superior negotiating skills. A poorly trained realtor could end up making mistakes to cost a homeowner thousands of dollars. Is a realtor worth 6%? Absolutely yes if you hire the right one. No, if you hire the wrong one. When a realtor does a listing presentation, it is actually a job interview. Most homeowners do not know how to conduct a proper interview and ask the right questions. Don't you think someone with 20 years experience and who sucessfully sells thirty homes a year is better equipped and worth more than the part time salesperson who just came into the business to see if they could make a quick buck and has never even sold a house yet? It's the same in any other industry. The best get paid better because they are worth it to the person hiring them. Also, if you think technology should bring down the cost of commissions, then how come investment in technology has actually raised the expenses in many industries and has resulted in a higher cost of products and services? Another point is that lowering costs virtuall always costs in services. There has been a great deal of pressure on the airline industry over recent years to cut prices. If you flew 25 years ago, you knew that there were more airlines to choose from and competition forced them to bring up their level of service. By cutting airline fees so much, a lot of major airlines went out of business and today, flying is a not nearly as pleasant as it was years ago, with all the services cut out. You must realize that Better is Better and Cheaper is Cheaper. You can't have both. There are numerous discount real estate companies out there to choose from. If that is what you want, then fine. However, don't expect to get the same level of service or the best sales price. There are two ways to get a higher net out of your sale. Reduce commissions or sell for a higher price. Which company do you think you have a better chance of selling for a higher price through? The discount broker or the full service one? I find it amazing that people who have never been in the real estate industry claim to be experts in that field. There are numerous so-called experts that write columns about realtors getting paid far too much. Perhaps you should get paid by your column, regardless of your credentials, education or experience. I think 5 cents a sentance seems fair. How about you?

Posted by: Joe Meyer at Mar 19, 2006 11:58:30 AM

Yay, you go Joe!

Ditto all that.--and, FYI: brokers no longer pick up advertising costs. This is almost always an expense to the agents, and must be consistent, whether or not property is moving.

Posted by: Sharon at Jan 10, 2007 7:50:08 PM

Dear Ma/Sir,

My name is MARK HENNESY and I am constrained to write you this letter
after various enquiries I have made regarding sending out part of my
savings to acquire a property in your country and also in financing
directly some of my importation from Asia without
going through raising a Letter of Credit, which has almost limited my
imports as at when needed.

I have at hand, a total amount of $11Millon and would want to solicit
your assistance in using your 'Home Equity Line of Credit Account' in
transferring same to you, for your assistance in purchasing a home in
your state, not worth more than $4Million and to raise the balance
periodically in paying my customers directly for my imports hence we have
restrictions on the amount of money to be remitted at a time.

I spoke to my attorney on numerous possibilities, and he came up with
this measure which of course, will not attract any of the Government
taxes in financing, since the funds will go directly to a Home Equity Line
of Credit Account.

I have discussed with my wife, and we decided to write you for
assistance, even though we have not met you in person, we believe we can work
on Trust.We are willing to work with you on a reasonable percentage as
we will transfer the funds in bits to your Home Equity Line of Credit
Account, depending on your limit.

Please notify us if you can be of assistance, provided you have a HELOC
Account, we will not use a Checking or Savings account for this purpose
as restrictions applying here.We await your response.

Yours faithfully,

MR. & MRS.Mark Hennesy
TEL: +234 803 0809987
EMAIL: mark_hennesy001@yahoo.com

Posted by: mark at Jan 18, 2007 8:51:45 PM

houyuping 07年7月12日

google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
Ddo plat
Ddo plat
FFXI Gil
FFXI Gil
GW Gold
GW Gold
GW Power Leveling
GW Power Leveling
RS Gold
RS Gold

RS Power Leveling
RS Power Leveling
Lotro Gold
Lotro Gold
Lotro Power leveling
Lotro Power leveling
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
监控
货架
货架
货架
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
翻译公司
仓库
仓库
仓库出租
仓库出租
物流园区
物流园区
红外测温仪
红外测温仪

超声波测厚仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
频闪仪
频闪仪
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
电火花检测仪
电火花检测仪
google排名
门禁
门禁
门禁系统
门禁系统
搬家
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
搬家公司
激光打标机
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
集团电话
集团电话
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
china tour
china tour
青春痘
青春痘

摆闸
痤疮
痤疮
色斑
色斑
黄褐斑
黄褐斑
青春痘
青春痘
口腔医生
口腔医生
口腔
口腔
口腔医院
口腔医院
口腔科
口腔科
三星集团电话机
呼叫中心
电话交换机
交换机
呼叫中心
测厚仪
测温仪
停车场
道闸

Posted by: hyangel at Jul 11, 2007 10:59:03 PM

liqingchao 07年7月12日

google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司

上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
货架
红外测温仪
红外测温仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
频闪仪
频闪仪
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
电火花检测仪
电火花检测仪
google排名
仓库
仓库
仓库出租
仓库出租
物流园区
物流园区
集团电话
集团电话
四环素牙
口腔常识
口腔常识

口腔医生
口腔医生
网站设计
网站设计
多媒体
监控
监控
监控系统
监控系统
门禁
门禁
门禁系统
门禁系统
搬家公司
搬家公司
条码打印机
条码打印机
牙周炎
牙周炎

摆闸
痤疮
痤疮
色斑
色斑
黄褐斑
黄褐斑
青春痘
青春痘
口腔医生
口腔医生
口腔
口腔
口腔医院
口腔医院
口腔科
口腔科
三星集团电话机
呼叫中心
电话交换机
交换机
呼叫中心
测厚仪
测温仪
停车场
道闸

cheap Silkroad gold
cheap Silkroad gold
Silkroad gold
Silkroad gold
Silkroad Online gold
Silkroad Online gold
sro gold
sro gold
Archlord gold
Archlord gold
cheap Archlord gold
cheap Archlord gold
Archlord Online gold
Archlord Online gold
buy cheap Archlord gold
buy cheap Archlord gold
Dofus kamas
Dofus kamas
cheap Dofus kamas
cheap Dofus kamas
Dofus gold
Dofus gold
Dofus money
Dofus money
Rappelz Rupees
Rappelz Rupees
Rappelz gold
Rappelz gold
cheap Rappelz Rupees
cheap Rappelz Rupees

Posted by: wslmwps at Jul 12, 2007 2:25:07 AM

warcraft powerleveling

Posted by: asdd at Jul 12, 2007 3:26:03 AM

wanyamin 07年7月12日

wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow power leveling
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour

门禁
集团电话
集团电话
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
红外测温仪
红外测温仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
频闪仪
频闪仪
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
电火花检测仪
电火花检测仪
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
网站设计
网站设计
多媒体

google排名
wow gold
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
货架
货架
货架
猎头
猎头
软件测试工程师
软件测试工程师
软件测试
软件测试
软件测试培训
软件测试培训
仓库
仓库
仓库出租
仓库出租
物流园区
物流园区

摆闸
痤疮
痤疮
色斑
色斑
黄褐斑
黄褐斑
青春痘
青春痘
口腔医生
口腔医生
口腔
口腔
口腔医院
口腔医院
口腔科
口腔科
三星集团电话机
呼叫中心
电话交换机
交换机
呼叫中心
测厚仪
测温仪
停车场
道闸

cheap Silkroad gold
cheap Silkroad gold
Silkroad gold
Silkroad gold
Silkroad Online gold
Silkroad Online gold
sro gold
sro gold
Archlord gold
Archlord gold
cheap Archlord gold
cheap Archlord gold
Archlord Online gold
Archlord Online gold
buy cheap Archlord gold
buy cheap Archlord gold
Dofus kamas
Dofus kamas
cheap Dofus kamas
cheap Dofus kamas
Dofus gold
Dofus gold
Dofus money
Dofus money
Rappelz Rupees
Rappelz Rupees
Rappelz gold
Rappelz gold
cheap Rappelz Rupees
cheap Rappelz Rupees

Posted by: gill at Jul 12, 2007 3:38:17 AM

wanyamin 07年7月12日

wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow power leveling
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour

门禁
集团电话
集团电话
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
红外测温仪
红外测温仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
频闪仪
频闪仪
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
电火花检测仪
电火花检测仪
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
网站设计
网站设计
多媒体

google排名
wow gold
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
货架
货架
货架
猎头
猎头
软件测试工程师
软件测试工程师
软件测试
软件测试
软件测试培训
软件测试培训
仓库
仓库
仓库出租
仓库出租
物流园区
物流园区

摆闸
痤疮
痤疮
色斑
色斑
黄褐斑
黄褐斑
青春痘
青春痘
口腔医生
口腔医生
口腔
口腔
口腔医院
口腔医院
口腔科
口腔科
三星集团电话机
呼叫中心
电话交换机
交换机
呼叫中心
测厚仪
测温仪
停车场
道闸

cheap Silkroad gold
cheap Silkroad gold
Silkroad gold
Silkroad gold
Silkroad Online gold
Silkroad Online gold
sro gold
sro gold
Archlord gold
Archlord gold
cheap Archlord gold
cheap Archlord gold
Archlord Online gold
Archlord Online gold