I think a good hard look at performance-based compensation
agreements in real estate brokerage has merit. Imagine, if you will,
negotiating an agreement when you list a home that is akin to a
professional sports player's contract. The modern day professional
sports contract is laden with performance bonuses. A MLB player gets a
bonus if he makes the all-star team, hits a certain number of home
runs, maintains a certain batting average, or plays in a specified
number of games.
In the book, Freakonomics,
the authors liken real estate agents to the Ku Klux Klan in their
clandestine ability to exploit the information advantage they have over
the average consumer. Summarized, they conclude that ANY brokerage or
profession (doctor's, lawyers, and yes, Virginia, even mortgage
brokers) exploits this advantage in their ability to position
themselves as "experts".
The authors illustrate the real estate
agent's DISINCENTIVE to hold out for higher prices for their clients.
The incremental fee increase on, say, $30,000 really doesn't translate
much to a Realtor when you consider the risk that is involved for not
encouraging the client to accept a subpar offer. If $30,000 extra is
paid for a $400,000 home, the incremental increase is only about $400
to the listing agent (I am assuming 6% commission, split with a buyer's
agent, a 70% split with the broker, and a combined 35% tax bracket).
However, the lower offer of $400,000, accepted, does produce a
commission of about $5500 (same assumptions) to the Realtor.
This inspires this question...Is the $5500 bird in the hand worth more than $5900 bird in the bush?
Now,
I'm certain that this very question will produce righteous indignation
from Realtors. Many will scream ethical implications and bandy about
esoteric phrases like "fiduciary responsibility". I'm going to ask you
to rethink your comments before you type. Maybe read this idea over
again, grab a cup of coffee, call your best friend on the phone and run
the idea past them before you comment.
Let's
say that I have a $400,000 home listed that I agree to sell for
$380,000 at the low end. The absorption rate for my market is
say....90 days. You, as a professional Realtor, agree to list my home
and sell it for a 5% fee or $20,000. I don't want to pay you $20,000
for a...how can I put this?...average performance.
You see, I tip really well if the service is good so I want to pay you like I would a rookie quarter back who won the Heisman
trophy.
I will establish a base fee of $1,000, paid upfront to
defray marketing costs. For my fee, I expect exposure in the MLS, a
listing on your website with a virtual tour, maybe a newspaper ad or
two and 1-2 open houses. Now here's where the compensation gets really
good. If you sell my home in less than 90 days, I'll give you a
$10,000 bonus. Less than 45 days, that bonus is increased to $15,000.
That can certainly cover the co-brokerage fee you might offer to a
cooperating agent. If you sell my home for $380,000, we're done; you
get the time performance bonus. I'll add 5% of the price above
$380,000 as a bonus. For an offer accepted above 400,000, I'll pay you
50% of the amount above $400,000, after all, that's pure gravy to me.
So let's see how this plays out if you sell my home for $420,000 in 45 days:
Upfront
fee: $1,000 + Time bonus: $15,000 + First Bonus (5% of $40,000) =
$2,000 + Second Bonus (50% of $20,000) = $10,000. A Grand Total of
$28,000; a 40% higher net fee than the conventional fee model. Now, if you sell the home for $380,000 in 90 days, you'll make $13,000; a 55% decrease from the conventional net fee model.
I'm
sure it will require some creative incentives to pass on to the buyer's
agent and someone might point out that this incentive-based fee
pricing model might cause the buyer's agent to not properly represent
the buyer. I don't really care. It's my house, and I want the Michael Jordan of Realtors to show up on my team.