We need to enhance the auction system, not just complain about it
There has been a bit of talk in The Age recently with two articles on underquoting.
Generally speaking The Age’s Alice Stolz – ‘Underquoting needs to be addressed’ (May 2) seems to be most on the money as far as buyers are concerned.
My thought is: let’s reduce the emotional heat in the argument and drop the word underquoting and call it agent ‘step quoting’, as we do.
Why?
Because many agents are not really lying. What they are doing is informing buyers of a number, in a way that best represents their clients’ interests, which are not necessarily the same as your interests if you are a buyer. (Even if you feel they are lying, responding with anger and bad emotions are not always helpful in good buyer decision making.)
So, step quoting from agents is mainly about buyers not understanding what the agents quote really is, and what it isn’t.
Remember that an agent quote:
- Is a number designed to get you the buyer to visit the property – nothing more.
- Isn’t a cast iron guarantee of what the property will go for, or indeed what the seller will definitely sell for.
Our article on step quoting may be worth a read if you are a buyer and want to reduce quoting angst by understanding how agent quoting really works.
Another article in The Age titled: “Underquoting not a big problem” (also May 2), was, we felt, unhelpful if buyers perceived that agent quoting wasn’t a real issue because Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) hadn’t received many substantiated complaints.
To us that’s a bit like assuming the chickens are happy with the RSPCA endorsement of chicken meat in supermarkets because there are few complaints. In other words, just because formal CAV complaints are low, this does not necessarily mean that agent quoting is not a problem with buyers. All it may mean is that very few buyers want to go through a formal process of complaining – i.e., what’s in it for them, it’s hard to prove and the government has done little in the past.
In our opinion there is no link between the number of CAV complaints and the level of buyer unhappiness and confusion on agent quoting.
However, this is not an agent bashing exercise. While some have been the cause in the past, all can actually be the solution in the future if they want to be – so let’s keep it civil.
Agents across the board have to want to fix the quoting issue and currently there is no consensus to do so.
Agent quoting is a real and significant problem for buyers because:
- Many buyers do not understand what the agent quote is actually saying.
- The agents also do not have a consistent view as to what the agent quote is saying. Is the agent quote an agent guess, a seller reserve, a buyer estimate, or what? This creates much confusion.
- The agent body, the REIV (of which we are members), has only made a lukewarm attempt to address this issue. In fact they shut down their ethics committee a couple of years ago (I was on it at the time) and little has been heard on agent quoting since.
- The government has not successfully legislated to make the agent’s quote consistent and easily understood by the public.
All four of the above (buyers, agents, REIV and the government) need to be on the same page for anything to work.
The Queensland solution, as we understand it (and we may not fully), of removing all quoting appears to be an attempt to do the right thing. But it appears poorly conceived, impracticable and unpoliceable.
At some stage an agent will have to say a price. He or she is a conduit between buyer and seller and price is an unavoidable discussion point. At some stage, whether formally or informally, the buyer will say “give me an idea on price” and the agent will have to respond. We can’t see how that can be made illegal. But we may not know all the facts on the Queensland solution.
Buyers, sellers and agents all have rights and obligations in the matter of quoting; just like tradesman, Myer and petrol stations do when they are quoting.
One option is that the agent auction quote range (say $3 million to $3.5 million) must include the reserve in it at all times – irrespective of the timing of the quote. Rather than adjust the range during the campaign – just make it bigger.
If two buyers force the price beyond the range to, say, $3.8 million then so be it. That is market forces and no agent can predict that every time (ourselves included). But an ethical and skilled buyer or seller agent can get the range estimate right between 80% and 95% of the time (as we do), depending on the type of market we are in.
If a seller doesn’t want that range estimate restriction then they shouldn’t don’t use the auction process; they could use the EOI (expression of interest) and boardroom process instead.
If a buyer wants more pricing information then they need to do their research and either engage an independent buying professional or educate themselves somehow.
Finally the government and the REIV could be running a “real life and accurate” education campaign to explain what an agent quote is and what it is not. They make a lot of money from stamp duty and could put a little bit back.
Private sales and EOIs also need some attention. Nothing complicated, just a few simple rules around processes.
Auctions can be very transparent buying processes when run ethically for all parties, and they are part of Melbourne’s societal fabric. We should want to enhance what we have, not just complain about it.
Auctions are great!
Mal writes weekly auction reports, advice and in-depth market analysis on James' website.
