ShowPal wants to help you sell your home from as low as $999

lnc

Well-known member
Here's another newcomer want to help home seller save on commissions. 
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...ive-realtors-a-run-for-their-money-2018-08-16
https://showpal.com/


A few years ago, Chad Torstenson decided to sell his house. His experience, he said, was ?fairly typical.? A real-estate agent came to his home with a contract, a photo shoot was done, and a sign went up in the front yard.

?With the press of a button, the home was online and buyers began touring the home,? Torstenson said. ?However, my listing agent was not giving the tours, the buyer?s agents were. After the home sold, I realized that my agent did very little to earn his share of (the commission),? he said.

He began to think about what he calls ?the value of the Realtor to the consumer,? and the more he researched, the more convinced he became that professional real estate agents are redundant.

?This? became a company called ShowPal, which launched in Torstenson?s home city of Des Moines just in time for the 2018 selling season, funded by friends and family. ShowPal and a few other upstarts like it may be the answer to ? finally ? modernizing the buying and selling of real estate

ShowPal?s model is a ?graduated services? approach. For $999, homeowners get an appraisal and market analysis, a photo shoot, a yard sign, a listing on Zillow and Trulia, and the services of an attorney for closing documentation. For a few hundred more, sellers also get what might be the company?s secret sauce: a security service that allows interested buyers in for private showings or open houses. And the $1999 ?ultimate? package gets the listing on the Multiple Listing Service, the industry-controlled database of housing inventory for sale.
 
I'll take a stab at this. 

Theoretically, technology should be able to bring about a commoditization of real estate brokerage services; much like its done for the financial brokerage business.  However, shares of Apple are the same whether in LA, NY or anywhere else in the USA.  Unfortunately, single family homes aren't all the same and the services of an "expert" are still beneficial in order to properly price a home for sale.  Call 3 appraisers to appraise any given home and you'll likely receive a range of values rather than one single value.


Sites like Redfin and Realtor.com have given consumers access to most of the listings in the MLS; thereby taking away one of the traditional real estate agent's advantages which was access to inventory.  These sites have allowed users to see what is available for sale and what has recently sold; allowing users to form some kind of opinion of valuation.  However, data is only as good as the knowledge base of the user.  That coupled with owner bias (my home is nicer than yours) makes for interesting opinions of value when many homeowners try to price their own homes.


Then there is the process of selling a home.  In a hot market where homes don't require much marketing and your home is priced right; perhaps the marketing services of an agent is not necessary.  Personally, I think the majority of homes sold don't fall into this category.  Then there is the offer/counteroffer process for price and terms.  Many homeowners are just not knowledgeable in this arena and could potentially be taken advantage of by a more industry savvy buyer or agent.  What if one were lucky enough to have multiple attractive offers.  Would the average homeowner know how to pick the right buyer?


I'm not a real estate agent but rather have bought and sold a lot of real estate for investment.  I know enough to be able to perform all the tasks involved in selling my own home; but yet see the value in hiring the right agent to sell my own home as that agent can do a better job than I can (operative words are "the right agent").  These sites are good first steps in what I see as an eventual transformation of the real estate brokerage industry; but I think it is still in its infancy and many homeowners are still better off going with a full service agent.
 
irvine buyer said:
These sites are good first steps in what I see as an eventual transformation of the real estate brokerage industry; but I think it is still in its infancy and many homeowners are still better off going with a full service agent.
I agree. I think this is the direction we are heading eventually but in the far future. The 3% - 6% transaction cost involved in every RE deal makes RE investments inefficient. I am not an agent, my livelihood is not at stake, therefore my angle is obviously different. But I truly feel if we can make RE investment more efficient by lower the transaction cost significantly, RE investment as a whole will be better.

I am in the health care business and we have a lot of oversight and penalties involved because we handle people's most important asset, their health.
But, I have always been fascinated by how little oversight and penalties there are in RE. Yet, they handle most people's 2nd largest asset, their homes.
The lack of required transparency, the ethical conflicts of dual agent, and the extreme ease of acquiring a real estate agent license are just a few things off the top of my head that makes the current setup in RE seem questionable.

Yes, you do need a good agent in the current environment because the current RE setup is very flawed.
 
IMO, one of the biggest flaws of the current system is the dual agency concept where an agent can represent both the buyer and seller.  There are just so many inherent conflicts of interest when this happens as every agent would love to make both sides of the commission.  Single agency (where agent only represents seller) has gained some traction in commercial real estate listings, but I've not seen it happen in single family.
 
Kenkoko said:
irvine buyer said:
These sites are good first steps in what I see as an eventual transformation of the real estate brokerage industry; but I think it is still in its infancy and many homeowners are still better off going with a full service agent.
I agree. I think this is the direction we are heading eventually but in the far future. The 3% - 6% transaction cost involved in every RE deal makes RE investments inefficient. I am not an agent, my livelihood is not at stake, therefore my angle is obviously different. But I truly feel if we can make RE investment more efficient by lower the transaction cost significantly, RE investment as a whole will be better.

I am in the health care business and we have a lot of oversight and penalties involved because we handle people's most important asset, their health.
But, I have always been fascinated by how little oversight and penalties there are in RE. Yet, they handle most people's 2nd largest asset, their homes.
The lack of required transparency, the ethical conflicts of dual agent, and the extreme ease of acquiring a real estate agent license are just a few things off the top of my head that makes the current setup in RE seem questionable.

Yes, you do need a good agent in the current environment because the current RE setup is very flawed.

You echoed one of the things that I?ve always had a problem with in terms of becoming a real estate agent....the ease of getting your license with no educational requirement, no apprenticeship requirement, any easy exam with a high pass rate, etc. the reality is that over 80% of agents will fail and/or not be able to make a living being a real estate agent so it sorta becomes a big cash grab for the National, State, and local realtor associations. It?s a joke how easy it is to get a real estate license, especially if you compare it to how difficult it is to get a CPA license.

I?ve worked with a lot of agents over the past 10+ years and basically a third of agents are a pleasure to work with and knowledgeable, a third of agents are barely competent, and a third of agents are just a total waste of space. Working on a transaction with a good agent makes things go much smoother with less issues and last minute surprises.  Even from my point of view as a realtor, a good agent is worth their weight in gold.

One thing is clear, the old real estate model has to evolve and change because it?s as old as a fossil.  Most all realtors lack the ability to think out of the box and inovate and just end up following the same thing that they were thought by their mentor who was thought by their mentor who was taught by their mentor (you get the idea). As the saying goes, evolve or die. But hey, that?s fine because I look that much better with my work-effort Buyer commission credit model and my unique pay-for-performance listing commission model. 
 
irvine buyer said:
IMO, one of the biggest flaws of the current system is the dual agency concept where an agent can represent both the buyer and seller.  There are just so many inherent conflicts of interest when this happens as every agent would love to make both sides of the commission.  Single agency (where agent only represents seller) has gained some traction in commercial real estate listings, but I've not seen it happen in single family.

The biggest issues with dual agency are transparency and not acting as an impartial facilitator between both parties.  The lack of transparency comes when agents don?t show all 3rd party agent offers or hold back key information from the seller in hopes of the seller selecting their buyer.  A good agent will lay everything out on the table and provide unbiased objective information to the seller so that the seller can select the right buyer.  Acting as an impartial facilitator is also very important when representing both sides because you never want to give away information to one side that would put them at a disadvantage to the other side.  I?ll give you an example when I?ve represented both sides...I email both the buyer and sellervthe same closed comps for the homes then I tell the Buyer based upon the data you tell me the offer that you?d like to make. Then I represent the seller my buyer?s offer and leave it up to them if they want to accept or counter. It can be challenging to represent both sides on a transaction but a good agent knows how to do it right.  ;)
 
When there is a turn in the cycle - and there always is - does anyone want a robot to help negotiate your short sale? Can this same robot during a sellers market give you certain advice that the "all cash" sale you want to accept is really an "all cash sale....once they sell their own home they aren't telling you about". Every shiny and new e-realtor product has a shelf life of about a year or two because of the intricacies and nuances of a sale require more than an algorithm to get the job done. Remember how Zip Realty was the next big thing? It's been taken over by the traditional Coldwell Banker franchise. The data driven real estate sites (Zillow/Trulia and in some ways Redfin) will be the survivors as eventually some e-realtor systems will finally flourish.

There will be some commoditization of the Real Estate sales model. That much it a given. Hopefully those 2/3rd of real-a-ters who sully the license they've somehome managed to obtain will be the first to be washed out to sea by this wave of change. That's going to be a very good thing for the industry. The remaining survivors will have the 4-5% commission average squeezed down to 2-3%, and those interested in buying or selling a home will be well taken care of by a professional Agent, not a part time "area expert" with 1 sale in the past 14 months.

After almost a decade of systemic malfeasance by those in the mortgage business, once market reforms were forced upon the Banks, many of the bad actors were flushed out of the business. Many does not equal all, as we have come to see, but that's another thread. This same sort of reformation is coming to the Realtor world, but it will be market pressures and innovation that will thin the herd, not legislation.  We'll see in 3-4 years (IMHO)

My .02c
 
I am quite surprised that very few agents out there offers anything similar to USC's unique commission structure. Maybe most people just do not know or care therefore agents out there never felt the need to change?
It's less of an issue for me when I buy a home.
But, it's important to me when I sell a property that my interest and my listing agent's interest are more aligned. That's my biggest gripe when it comes to selling a home. With the lack of required transparency and the potential prospect of dual agency, I would never know for sure if the highest/best offer was presented to me.
 
USCTrojanCPA said:
The biggest issues with dual agency are transparency and not acting as an impartial facilitator between both parties.  The lack of transparency comes when agents don?t show all 3rd party agent offers or hold back key information from the seller in hopes of the seller selecting their buyer.  A good agent will lay everything out on the table and provide unbiased objective information to the seller so that the seller can select the right buyer.  Acting as an impartial facilitator is also very important when representing both sides because you never want to give away information to one side that would put them at a disadvantage to the other side.  I?ll give you an example when I?ve represented both sides...I email both the buyer and sellervthe same closed comps for the homes then I tell the Buyer based upon the data you tell me the offer that you?d like to make. Then I represent the seller my buyer?s offer and leave it up to them if they want to accept or counter. It can be challenging to represent both sides on a transaction but a good agent knows how to do it right.  ;)

I think the best a good agent can do in a dual agent transaction is to be impartial like you said above. But that is precisely the problem with dual agent. I would want my agent to be more than impartial. I would want my agent to use of every bit of info that can possibly be obtained for my benefit and exploit every possible advantage.This obviously cannot be done ethically in a dual agent transaction.
 
Kenkoko said:
USCTrojanCPA said:
The biggest issues with dual agency are transparency and not acting as an impartial facilitator between both parties.  The lack of transparency comes when agents don?t show all 3rd party agent offers or hold back key information from the seller in hopes of the seller selecting their buyer.  A good agent will lay everything out on the table and provide unbiased objective information to the seller so that the seller can select the right buyer.  Acting as an impartial facilitator is also very important when representing both sides because you never want to give away information to one side that would put them at a disadvantage to the other side.  I?ll give you an example when I?ve represented both sides...I email both the buyer and sellervthe same closed comps for the homes then I tell the Buyer based upon the data you tell me the offer that you?d like to make. Then I represent the seller my buyer?s offer and leave it up to them if they want to accept or counter. It can be challenging to represent both sides on a transaction but a good agent knows how to do it right.  ;)

I think the best a good agent can do in a dual agent transaction is to be impartial like you said above. But that is precisely the problem with dual agent. I would want my agent to be more than impartial. I would want my agent to use of every bit of info that can possibly be obtained for my benefit and exploit every possible advantage.This obviously cannot be done ethically in a dual agent transaction.

Dual agency has always been a tricky thing and not many agents will do handle it the proper way.  There are a few benefits for the seller when I represent the buyer...the seller pay a lower buyer agent commission and I am control of the transaction (aka I know exactly where things stand with the transaction).
 
Back
Top