How Not to Choose Your Agent - Dethridge Groves Real Estate

Feb 09, 2017

Share this article

When the time comes to sell or lease your property, would-be vendors and landlords increasingly look to the internet to help shortlist agents that might meet their needs.

Well established methods of choosing your agent such as noting the more active agents in your area by number of signboards, adverts in the Herald, recommendations from friends and relatives or visiting Home Opens to meet agents remain effective methods.

In the on-line space, REIWA offers the excellent reiwa.com Agent Finder; an independent, credible source of finding professional agents. Also occupying the portal space are a myriad of commercial operators that purport to “find the best agent near you”.

Conducting a Google search of “Real Estate Agents Fremantle” for example will throw up paid for adverts for www.localagentfinder.com.au, www.whichrealestateagent.com.au and www.openagent.com.au.

These “intermediaries” claim they can find you the best agent. The truth is they merely run a portal and a call centre whereby they contact local agents offering them a lead for a property listing in exchange for a minimum 20 per cent of their selling fee. The consumer then contacts the participating agents, chooses one from the list and is astonished to find the agent will be paying a referral fee to the intermediary. Suddenly, the vendor’s confidence in their agent, one prepared to give up a portion of their fee to obtain a lead is undermined. Now working for less money, how hard will the agent now work for me?

The main problem here is that successful, leading agents (therefore the best ones) don’t need to use them to get business. Why would they? The best agents get business on their merit and are understandably reticent to hand over 20-25% of their commission to an anonymous commercially motivated intermediary for nothing more than a lead. Consumers need to know that in using these sites, you’re simply not getting access to the best agents just the cheapest and most desperate.

These commercial intermediaries are not the vendor advocates they purport to be. A consumer that chooses to pay an advocate to properly and genuinely seek out the best agent for their circumstances is, however, perfectly legitimate.

By Hayden Groves – REIWA President

You might also be interested in

Jun 5, 2023

Cheap isn’t always cheerful

By Hayden Groves We’ve all heard the idiom, “If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys” and we understand the meaning; by choosing the cheapest option, the result is usually equally cheap. This applies to just about everything in life from the food we eat, the clothes we wear and yes, the real estate agents we choose. When market conditions are strong with supply short and demand high, the average days on market for most properties begins to shorten. Vendors begin to expect that their property will “sell itself”; they form the view that the agent’s role is made easier by an anticipated quick sale and “easy” commission.  Emboldened by this perception, vendors seek to negotiate a lower sales commission from their preferred agent. Couple this with agents competing hard for listing opportunities in a low-supply market and agency selling fees come under some downward pressure. These agents are very rarely the cheapest. When choosing your preferred agent, the selling fee is the last thing you should concern yourself with. It’s almost irrelevant.  Now before you shout, “Of course he’d say that!” think about this. The agent’s primary responsibility is to seek the highest possible price the market will bear and achieve it in the shortest possible time. In a rising market, only a skilled, experienced and committed agent who is genuinely acting in your best interest will effectively prosecute this mandate. These agents are very rarely the cheapest.  These agents are not satisfied with a quick and easy sale, they will push the boundaries to seek an extraordinary outcome for their client by skilfully pitching buyers into competition.  The agent who’ll be satisfied to work for low commissions have to take the “quick and easy” sale to the Vendors and encourage them to take the offer because they’re working on volumes. They must move onto the next sale to make a living. They survive by selling more than the agent who sells half the property at twice the fee. Quality over quantity applies here. It is the agent that takes a deliberate, considered approach to the marketing and sales process in a bespoke, nurturing way that is genuinely vested in the outcome for their client that can demand a reasonable professional fee.  Choose your preferred agent on their merit first and negotiate the fee last. Factor into your selling outcome the bit extra you may need to pay a properly committed, partnering agent. 

Mar 14, 2022

Relief for Flood Victims

Imagine for a moment losing or having your home seriously damaged by the floods that ravaged parts of Queensland and NSW. Apart from the obvious stresses of losing your possessions and having to live elsewhere for long periods, the financial burdens would loom large. Insurance costs in these disaster-prone areas have, in some cases, risen by 75 percent. A friend of mine recently told me it costs him $14,000 a year to insure his investment property – with a $500,000 replacement value - in Port Hedland, another region prone to natural disaster. These costs are naturally passed on to tenants negatively impacting rental affordability in these regions. The federal government recently passed legislation in the lower house that enables a $10B reinsurance pool, effectively underwriting insurers’ insurance risks which, in turn, should lower premiums for property located above the 26th parallel. Let’s hope this makes a difference. It also occurred to me that many victims of the recent floods have probably endured such upheavals on many occasions and there must come a time when the idea of having to re-build their homes and lives is simply too much. It would not surprise to find many families will move from disaster-prone areas and when they do, they’ll pay stamp duty on their home purchases. It is widely known that stamp duty is a significant barrier to property ownership and is an insidious, transaction-killing tax that should be reformed. Stamp duty significantly reduces household mobility with its removal would free up more suitable housing for more Australians and would improve economic efficiency.  Buyers keen to relocate their family away from natural disaster zones or where there are better work opportunities are punished by stamp duty costs each time they move. Thanks to bracket creep, all households across Australia are paying substantially more stamp duty now compared to twenty years ago which is hindering the efficient use of and suitability of housing across the nation. Also, stamp duty is often borrowed adding years and additional expense to home mortgages. State governments are awash with stamp duty revenue, some $60b earned last year. This reliance on property transfer related revenue makes it difficult to reform as this tax base needs to come from somewhere. Alternatively, albeit politically poisonous, a 2 percent increase in GST that gets distributed to the states could offer an immediate fix. Meanwhile, those fleeing disaster-prone areas and buying elsewhere ought to be spared the cost of stamp duty; they have, after all, ensured enough.