Featured post

www.OxfordPropertyBlog.co.uk is hosting a Landlord seminar

On 2 March 2017, we will host a seminar featuring expert speakers from Martin & Co, Hedges Law, Critchleys Chartered Accountants and...

Thursday 1 June 2017

Commisery vs. Home sale regret – which estate agency model is best?

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