air force ones puma shoes clae shoes all star basketball shoes shoes online buy shoes gucci shoes beach shoes fidel shoes jordan jf retro air yeezy size 13 ed hardy xl women ed hardy tiger shirts

Absolutely true. Not good, but true and something we do our best (with mixed success) to counsel on. It is *very* difficult to separate emotion in a transaction like a home purchase. It needs to be a business decision, but human nature being what it is, it's virtually impossible for it to be purely business.

Perhaps my example of a buyer saying “I love this house” to the seller's agent wasn't the best example. It was the first one that popped into my head. But if the seller knows the buyer has already begun that emotional attachment to the home, then it does give the seller an advantage. They can counter lower knowing the buyer is in love. I simply feel it's it's important not to divulge anything that could even remotely compromise the buyer's position.

And I see absolutely nothing positive that having a seller's agent present at a showing brings to the buyer.

“Your response “…I don't have data that supports they would do the same with a listing agent present, because no listing agent will be present when I show a home.” — pretty much sums up the bias expected and bias given.”

I don't understand how this is biased. I keep sellers agents away from my buyers for their own good, not mine.

“no electronic device will EVER replace human representation…I hope that fact isn't lost in the exchange.”

Again we are in complete agreement.

“The process of buying and selling a home in Arizona (and I suspect many other places…) is based on how realtors perceive the process to be that best suits their means.”

Please don't generalize and lump all Realtors into one big category. I don't do what best suits my interests. I do what best serves my clients interests. Of course there are self-serving agents out there. But we're not all that way. I know exactly who pays my bills, and I respect them completely. I've often said I am not a salesman. I'm not here to sell anyone a home. I'm here to make sure their best interests are represented — whether I'm working with a buyer or a seller. I've built my brokerage on customer service, not self service.

The point of the article wasn't really about what is the best way to show a home. The point was, combination lock boxes stink, giving codes out over the phone is stupid, and electronic boxes are far superior and solve the problems combination boxes present.

But I sure appreciate the exchange, it's been good. And you've given me a great idea for a future article. When it's posted (likely late this week), I hope you'll come back and continue the debate!

We'll agree to disagree.

On the one hand realtors talk about positioning homes for sale based primarily on market conditions, comps based on some high % w/flex, blah blah blah. On the other hand they talk the importance of buyer negotiation being an issue. I'd submit that's a small piece of the puzzle.

Further — I'd assert that buying a home is an emotional transaction, to the detriment sometimes of rational thought. Sound familiar?

While agents downplay (and downspeak) purchase emotions – buyers either “feel it” or they don't. EMOTION.

So what if a potential buyer “loves it” and says they do? That translates to NOTHING on paper. How is communicating positive (or negative) responses compromising your fiduciary responsibility? It isn't and it doesn't.

If a client finds a property they like and want to pursue it via a contract, it seems to me your “fiduciary responsibility” is to counsel them on key environmental, legal and other purchase aspects vs. communication exchange.

Your response “…I don't have data that supports they would do the same with a listing agent present, because no listing agent will be present when I show a home.” — pretty much sums up the bias expected and bias given.

The process of buying and selling a home in Arizona (and I suspect many other places…) is based on how realtors perceive the process to be that best suits their means.

Perhaps one day the process will serve the people who buy and sell homes. After all is said and done – buyers & sellers pay your bills.

Back on subject – no electronic device will EVER replace human representation…I hope that fact isn't lost in the exchange.

Good day.

I thought I'd addressed that. The sellers agent works for the seller, presumably with the sole intent of getting the home sold. No matter how much I coach my buyers, all it takes is one misstep on the buyers part and the sellers agent has “ammo” that could hurt my clients negotiating position. I have a fiduciary responsibility to my client to ensure that doesn't happen.

“who says the seller's agents presence is there to sell anyone?”

Real estate agents sell property. If they aren't there to sell the home, there isn't much point in them being there.

“why can't they simply be there to answer any questions?”

Unless you are taking about a very high-end custom home, there really isn't a whole lot a seller's agent can say about the home that a good buyer's agent won't already know. What kind of question could a sellers agent answer that a (good) buyers agent wouldn't know, or be able to find out?

“who better knows the property than the sellers agent?”

Well, the seller knows the most about it. But again, it's not like homes have all these deep dark secrets that are only discovered by “knowing” the property.

“why can't they simply be there to capture dynamic comments?”

Again, I don't want the person working for the seller to capture ANY comments from my client. All my client has to say, for example, is “Wow, I love this home!” And bang, our negotiating position just got weaker. If the sellers agent wants feedback, they can call me. I'll generally tell them what my client thought, but I sure won't give away any info that could compromise my clients position.

“convenience is relative — listen to seller's HORROR stories about unsavory buyer's agents, I'll bet there's more of those to offset any convenience factors.”

Believe me, I hear horror stories every day. Read through this blog and you'll see many that I share. I can tell you one thing though, in my market, if it is in the LEAST bit inconvenient for a buyer to view a property, they will move on. They have 35,000 homes here to chose from. If we were to have to wait even 5 minutes for a listing agent to show up, my client would simply say “Next!”. Buyers simply aren't going to even remotely jump through hoops to see a home. Sellers HAVE to make it easy for buyers to view the property.

“I'd submit if someone wants to actually buy a home, they could care less who's there supporting the property showing.”

And I would submit that a buyer doesn't care if the person representing the seller shows them a home, they are potentially making a critical mistake.

“Why not reduce the number of tire kickers by pre-qualifying potential buyers, reduce the number of home showings by actually gathering their needs and showing only those that fit 75% plus of those needs?”

We do exactly that (actually, we show homes that are closer to fitting 100% of the buyer's needs). Any buyer's agent worth a flip would do that. Are there lousy buyer's agents out there? Of course. But I'm not showing a home to anyone that isn't 1) serious about buying; and 2) qualified to buy. I have a lot better things to do than drag tire kickers around.

“Why not actually schedule appointments for home showings vs. this “I drove by your home just now and my buyers want to see it NOW” mentality?”

We do schedule appointments for home showings. But things come up, schedules change, timelines need to be flexible. Occasionally as we're driving about, a buyer may say
what about that house?” And since we've done our homework, we'll be able to say — that house doesn't meet your criteria for x, y, and z.

“I'd submit the “old days” of showing 15-20 properties a day is time wasted. It's a new world, time to communicate new processes, and to better utilize technology.”

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the buyer. We get a LOT of out of state (and out of country) buyers that have very limited time to look for a home. You can search all day long on the internet, but at some point, people that are totally unfamiliar with the Phoenix area need to see a lot of homes in a lot of different areas in order to make a decision of this magnitude.

“I'd continue to submit — sans empirical data to dismiss it, the current process is askew and needs modification.”

I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it. But the answer isn't simply to have listing agents present for showings. I have data that buyers spend FAR less time looking at a home where the sellers are present. I don't have data that supports they would do the same with a listing agent present, because no listing agent will be present when I show a home.

Ultimately the answer may be better qualified buyer's agents. Or having something in place to remove the lousy ones. That would take a fundamental shift in the typical broker's mentality though — which is something I've been suggesting for quite some time.

* why wouldn't you want the seller's agent loitering?
(seems to me the current process works for realtors, not the sellers)

* who says the seller's agents presence is there to sell anyone?
* why can't they simply be there to answer any questions?
* who better knows the property than the sellers agent?
* why can't they simply be there to capture dynamic comments?

* convenience is relative — listen to seller's HORROR stories about unsavory buyer's agents, I'll bet there's more of those to offset any convenience factors.

Again – the process should represent buyer and seller, not someone's interpretation of what's the best way — ie “convenience”. I'd submit if someone wants to actually buy a home, they could care less who's there supporting the property showing. The alternatives are less pleasant – and most of the alternatives are negative.

Why not reduce the number of tire kickers by pre-qualifying potential buyers, reduce the number of home showings by actually gathering their needs and showing only those that fit 75% plus of those needs?

Why not actually schedule appointments for home showings vs. this “I drove by your home just now and my buyers want to see it NOW” mentality? I'd submit the “old days” of showing 15-20 properties a day is time wasted. It's a new world, time to communicate new processes, and to better utilize technology.

I'd continue to submit — sans empirical data to dismiss it, the current process is askew and needs modification.

I can see your points. But, consider this…

If I am viewing a home with a buyer client and the listing agent is there, I am going to ask them to step outside and leave us alone.

Why?

I don't want my client being “sold to” by the listing agent. I'm not about to let a listing agent “work” my buyer and try to glean information that could improve his client's (the seller) negotiating position.

I don't need a listing agent to point out anything about the home. I've seen thousands of homes and know what to look for. It's not about time or effort. I represent my buyers, I have their interests in mind and I'm not letting the guy that represents the seller anywhere near them.

If the listing agent or the home owner are on the premises during the showing, the buyer is almost certain to spend less time in the home. As a seller, that is not what you want.

In the Phoenix market, buyers typically look at a LOT of houses. A seller needs to make it convenient for the buyer to view the home — hence the lockbox.

And honestly, why is the listing agent pointing out options to improve the saleability of the home to buyers (like cleaning the windows to let more light in)? They should be pointing out these options to THEIR CLIENTS long before a potential buyer even sets foot in the home.