Which model of estate agency is best – online or traditional,
and how do they differ? Which model
serves its clients best? Does an estate agent have a fiduciary duty? (a ‘fiduciary’
being a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more
other parties) and, does either model undermine that duty? Finally, which offers the best value?
I will consider these and other questions from the
perspective of a property owner over the next couple of weeks.
How do the models differ?
Traditional estate agency is based on no-sale, no-fee. If the agent fails to sell the property their
client pays nothing. If they secure an
offer that proceeds to an exchange of contracts, they claim their pre-agreed
fee. Typically, that fee is quoted as a
percentage of the achieved sale price. For an average Oxford home that sells
for £408,500, the current average commission paid is 1% or £4,080.
With online agents, the client pays an up-front fee which
covers in advance the cost of marketing, and pays the agent its profit
margin. If the property sells both
parties benefit, but if the house does not sell the client has still paid the
agent’s fee. In Oxford currently, the
average paid for an online agent is c£995.
Both approaches typically advertise a property via the same
online portals, but typically the online model is less comprehensive in terms
of the support provided for example some online agents expect clients to
conduct their own viewings, and provide only rudimentary sales progression,
others offer a menu whereby the client can pay a larger fee for a fuller
service. The traditional agency model is
more uniform and includes all aspects of marketing, viewing management,
negotiation of offers, sale and chain progression.
Some sellers prefer to work with multiple agents, believing
that competition between agents ensures that they work harder to ensure that
they (as opposed to their competitor) achieve the sale. Others prefer to select just one agent who
they trust to provide them an effective service.
Where two traditional agents work in competition only one
fee will be payable by the client to whichever agent secures the sale. Typically, the fee paid using multiple agents
is higher than the fee paid to a sole agent.
Where an online agent and a traditional agent work alongside each other,
two fees may be paid i.e. the online agent charges their standard up-front fee,
but the 2nd agent secures the sale, making their fee additionally
apply. It could therefore be argued that
the up-front nature of online agent fees discourages the appointment of
multiple agents.
Currently online agents have around a 4% market share which
is growing steadily, traditional agents have a 96% market share.
What is the agent’s responsibility?
A recent Opinion, prepared for the UK PropTech Association
(UKPA) by Ian Rees Phillips of 6 Pump Court, explores how the nature of
up-front payment for estate agency services may create a conflict of interest
between the online estate agent and property vendors.
The opinion concludes that the online agents and traditional
agents owe a fiduciary duty to their home seller clients, and that there is a
“significant danger that breach of fiduciary duty is baked into the online
estate agent model.”
What causes this potential conflict of interest? The fact
that the fee is paid up-front, and is paid irrespective of whether the home is
sold or not is the central concern. But,
there is a further concern, that once paid, the agent no longer has an
incentive to put every effort into securing the best sale price for their
client.
Whilst the traditional agent is typically more expensive,
because it is a proportion of the sale price achieved, the agent’s financial
interest is aligned its client’ interests.
Because it is only payable for success, it requires the agent to accept
and manage a greater level of risk, encouraging a more realistic initial
valuation or else risking incurring cost without succeeding in achieving a sale.
No comments:
Post a Comment