The point you make around 45:00 is a huge one. Also, why does Jonathan seem to think that a buyer or buyer’s agent can’t determine a fair market value without the use of something like DOM? Any brand new agent can use DOM to their advantage when submitting a low offer, but a great agent or very savvy consumer can figure out what to offer regardless of DOM being present or not.
Transparency isn’t needed here, but skill is. The market would work itself out here, and I bet consumers wouldn’t be so upset with bad agents if the system didn’t allow for them to even exist.
Jonathan - what would you say about Greg Hagues point. “this "transparency" argument that we have an obligation to disclose to the world, or even an individual buyer, a seller's days-on-market and price adjustments is ridiculous. The only industries where time on the market disclosures exits are food and medicine; with expiration dates to protect our physical health. Can you imagine America's retailers, including Amazon and every brick and mortar store, being required to disclose to every buyer how long every product has been sitting unsold, and whether/when the price was changed? That's not transparency, that's unfairly tilting the commercial model against sellers and in favor of buyers. "Transparency" is a warm/fuzzy word being selfishly leveraged by those in our industry who benefit from using others' listings to enrich themselves. It's a shame so many buy into this charade.”
I agree that the purpose of private listings is not about double-ending deals. IMO, it's likely about getting ahead of the concern that over time commission rates in general will decline. They will decline overall because of the buyer's agent inability to quantify or price their value proposition, at least not as consistently as the listing agent can.
Given that the listing side of the business controls supply for buyers and those listing brokers are no longer able to offer cooperating commission, then charging their selling client a 3% commission or maybe even 4% is in the cards. IMO, eventually it's going to get very confusing representing the buy side, buyers will want an audit of time spent and value added. Buyers may even start to wonder how much of this service could be handled by their lawyer for $250 an hour - there are actually lawyers ramping up that model now.
Rob, I'm sure you have plenty to do, but it would be great to hear about various strategies and cost models that are being discussed or utilized from a buyer's agent side of the deal (now). I think it would help better understand why private listings have become more interesting. While buyers (the money) control the deal, from an "inside baseball" view point seller's agents are in control of the transaction dollars and their grip is tightening.
This is one of the most civil, intelligent and insightful conversations on the subject
The point you make around 45:00 is a huge one. Also, why does Jonathan seem to think that a buyer or buyer’s agent can’t determine a fair market value without the use of something like DOM? Any brand new agent can use DOM to their advantage when submitting a low offer, but a great agent or very savvy consumer can figure out what to offer regardless of DOM being present or not.
Transparency isn’t needed here, but skill is. The market would work itself out here, and I bet consumers wouldn’t be so upset with bad agents if the system didn’t allow for them to even exist.
Jonathan - what would you say about Greg Hagues point. “this "transparency" argument that we have an obligation to disclose to the world, or even an individual buyer, a seller's days-on-market and price adjustments is ridiculous. The only industries where time on the market disclosures exits are food and medicine; with expiration dates to protect our physical health. Can you imagine America's retailers, including Amazon and every brick and mortar store, being required to disclose to every buyer how long every product has been sitting unsold, and whether/when the price was changed? That's not transparency, that's unfairly tilting the commercial model against sellers and in favor of buyers. "Transparency" is a warm/fuzzy word being selfishly leveraged by those in our industry who benefit from using others' listings to enrich themselves. It's a shame so many buy into this charade.”
ROB,
I agree that the purpose of private listings is not about double-ending deals. IMO, it's likely about getting ahead of the concern that over time commission rates in general will decline. They will decline overall because of the buyer's agent inability to quantify or price their value proposition, at least not as consistently as the listing agent can.
Given that the listing side of the business controls supply for buyers and those listing brokers are no longer able to offer cooperating commission, then charging their selling client a 3% commission or maybe even 4% is in the cards. IMO, eventually it's going to get very confusing representing the buy side, buyers will want an audit of time spent and value added. Buyers may even start to wonder how much of this service could be handled by their lawyer for $250 an hour - there are actually lawyers ramping up that model now.
Rob, I'm sure you have plenty to do, but it would be great to hear about various strategies and cost models that are being discussed or utilized from a buyer's agent side of the deal (now). I think it would help better understand why private listings have become more interesting. While buyers (the money) control the deal, from an "inside baseball" view point seller's agents are in control of the transaction dollars and their grip is tightening.
43:20 is one of the most interesting points you made.