Is it worth paying a real estate agent to sell your house?
Photo:
123rf.com
You might pay a real estate agent $30,000 or more to sell your home. But is it worth it?
Analysis by property data firm Cotality suggests it might be.
Each year, a small number of people opt to sell their homes privately - from a low of 3.1 percent in 2021 to 8 percent in 2016. Last year, it was 7.6 percent.
But Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said agents seemed to sell properties more quickly and effectively.
"The sales success rate is higher for agent sales - by an average of 11.5 percent over the 10 year period."
Roughly 76 percent of agent-listed properties in the past 10 years were successfully sold, compared to 65.1 percent of privately listed properties.
Last year 65 percent of agent listed properties sold, compared to 52.8 percent for private sales.
Goodall said real estate salespeople would often have an understanding of which buyers might be in the market for a particular property and could target them more effectively than a private seller might.
"The typical days on market for agent sales is also most often shorter. In 2021 - the market peak - the median days on market for agent sales was 24, while it was 40 for private sales. Interestingly last year was the one year to buck that trend, with agent sales taking a median of 75 days, compared to 71 days for private."
He said the median sales price for properties sold by agents was higher, too, but that could reflect a different mix of properties being sold.
"Vendors may be more likely to sell their property privately when it's a lower value property, whereas owners of more expensive property might be more likely to use an agent."
He said last year's higher rate of private sales could reflect vendors being aware that prices were not strong and looking to save money where they could.
"Nonetheless, for the record, the median sales price of properties sold by agents this year is $740,000, compared to $662,500 for private sales. Last year the respective figures were $735,000 for agents and $704,000 for private."
Goodall said the data was not definitive enough to say whether agents were delivering enough extra value to pay their commission. At Barfoot & Thompson, for example, a $750,000 sale would incur $23,978 in commission. A $1 million sale would mean just under $30,000.
"The figure for this year is almost $100,000 so I'd say that would justify it if it was like-for-like properties. But the year before was closer so you might be sort of borderline there."
Goodall said people selling privately would also need to account for the time they would need to spend on the process.
"Having to take time off work or the opportunity cost or what else you could be doing if you have to spend all that time preparing to sell a property on your own, you know that might bring the calculation a little bit closer as well."
Real estate agent Brooke Gibson said she could understand why people would sell privately. She did it herself before she entered the industry.
But she said she could see that agents would add value for most people, particularly when it came to negotiating.
"You could actually easily kill the deal because you know, if someone comes up to you and you're opening up your house to them and they go 'how much do you want?' and you say $1 million and he thinks it's worth $700,000 for example, he's going to be like 'nah not interested."
Wellington salesperson Mike Robbers agreed. He said agents would also often present properties a bit better than private sellers would, with professional photography and home staging.
"Private sellers often start out with a very high price in mind, then reduce it over time when there's no interest, but by then the listing has gone 'cold'. Agents tend to use their market knowledge to get the pricing strategy right from the outset, so the listing doesn't sit as long on the market."
He said some buyers also expected to pay less for a private sale because the seller did not have to cover commission.
Real Estate Authority chief executive Belinda Moffat said whether it was better to sell privately or through an agency would depend on the seller's specific circumstances, the property itself and the seller's knowledge and experience.
"Licensed real estate professionals are trained and experienced in working on behalf of homeowners to help them navigate property transactions with confidence and are legally required to seek the best outcome for their client."
She said all real estate salespeople were required to follow the standards in the Code of Professional Conduct and Client Care and meet their obligations under the Real Estate Agents Act 2008.
"If a person works with a licensed real estate professional, and an issue arises with their professional conduct, the person has the option to make a formal complaint to REA and/or to raise the issue with their agency."
Agents should provide a current market appraisal (CMA) of what a property might sell for before they signed an agency agreement.
"(CMA) of what they think the property might sell for before the seller signs an agency agreement. The CMA must be informed by comparable recent sales in the area and can be helpful in understanding what the property may be worth. They will also prepare a proposed marketing plan which the seller can discuss, amend and agree to.
"They also understand and can advise on the important legal disclosure obligations a seller has when selling a property, including in relation to defects and unconsented alterations. If a seller knowingly fails to disclose relevant information to buyers, they could be in breach of the terms of their agreement with any buyer, meaning the sale could fall over or the buyer could seek compensation and take court action."
She said vendors might be able to negotiate commission.
People choosing to sell privately should research the process so they understood what was require, she said.
Moffat said confidence in the industry had lifted from 70 percent in 2021 to 82 percent last year.
Goodall said there was demand for property but there remained high numbers of listings.
"I think if you're willing to be very, very flexible on that price then it's probably not that difficult to get a sale, but it's all about you know, your expectation, what you want to do, if you're buying in the same market, if you're moving elsewhere..."
He said some people were still hung up on the prices being paid at the peak of the market and were finding it hard to adjust their expectations.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
'Brought to its knees': Why NZ can't shake the recession
Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King New Zealanders were told to "survive til '25" for the economy to pick up - but now one major bank economist says it's probably going to be 2026 before any real improvement happens. Kiwibank's latest Annual Regional Note shows small improvements across the country, but weak scores overall. The national average score has lifted from three out of 10 to four. Southland and Otago top the table at five. Otago was boosted by a recovery in international tourism and improvement in employment. Northland, Taranaki and Gisborne went backwards. Taranaki had the biggest fall in employment of anywhere in the country, at 8 percent. Northland reported a double-digit drop in building consents. Retail sales remain below their average levels over the past decade in most regions, as weak household confidence weighs on consumption. Kiwibank said Wellington recorded the steepest annual decline at a -3.3 percent, while regions like Waikato, Northland and the Bay of Plenty experienced a slight improvement on last year. Wellington's score improved from a two out of 10 to a three out of 10 while Auckland lifted from a three to four. "Wellington is just more pessimistic," Kiwibank chief economist Jarrod Kerr said. "It's gone through a lot in recent years. You can see it in their activity, you can see it in the housing market. You can see it in the economy, the city has been brought to its knees and it's been struggling to shake the pessimistic vibe." He said both Auckland and Wellington were well below average. "If you look across the regions, some of them have gone backwards and others are improving but it's not good. "When you look at the South Island things are better, people are definitely more optimistic in the South Island but even then the top scoring regions get a five out of 10." He said the report helped solidify the view that rate cuts to date had not been enough to turn around the economy. "We're really crawling out of this recession rather than regaining our footing and looking to grow from here. We're still struggling across the entire country." He said Kiwibank customers last year had talked about needing to hold on until this year. "We are halfway through the year and, yes, things are better but only by a little bit." New Zealand was worse off than Australia, he said. "Their economy is much stronger than ours but in their terms it's soft… where everything washes out is the labour market and, you know, the unemployment rate tells you a lot. Our unemployment rate is over 5 percent and theirs is pretty close to 4 percent." Part of the reason was the more aggressive interest rate hikes from the Reserve Bank, he said. "We were much more aggressive in our rate hikes than in Australia. We were much more aggressive on inflation than across the Tasman. "I think both the RBA and RBNZ made mistakes as I think every central bank did through the Covid period, we overstimulated in hindsight but at the time it was the right thing to do. And then we had to deal with the inflation problem." He said the Reserve Bank had kept the official cash rate at 5.5 percent for too long as it worked to tackle inflation. "We had a really bad recession last year, which the Reserve Bank openly orchestrated, they said 'look, we need a recession to get inflation back down'. The Australians didn't orchestrate a recession, they didn't slam the economy into the floor." Kerr said recovery was still coming but he had hoped it would have started more obviously by now. "We're hoping it takes off in the second half of this year as more and more people refix on to lower rates. Then it's more of a 2026 story now."
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Is there any way to make a pre-nup 100 percent certain?
RNZ's money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Send your questions to I've heard various people and sources say that there is no sure way to protect your assets from a partner after three years as a partner can claim unfairness or something similar. Is this true? Some people say a trust can sometimes be broken and pre-nups sometimes don't hold up. Is there any 100 percent certain way to protect your assets before going into a relationship over three years? Sorry, it's probably true that there's no 100 percent way to protect your assets. People often sign a contracting out agreement if they want their relationship property to be treated differently to the way that the law directs. But you're right that this is open to challenge, particularly if it can be argued that the arrangement is unfair. Bill Atkin, emeritus professor in Victoria University's faculty of law, said this was true of any contract and would depend on the circumstances. "The test for the court to set aside an agreement is where 'giving effect to the agreement would cause serious injustice'. There are other factors taken into account including the desire for certainty. It is not common for a contract to be set aside unless, for example, there has been some improper dealings in getting a party to sign. On the other hand, a contract entered into many years ago may turn out to be unreasonable in the light of what has happened in the meantime. To allow no leeway for setting contracts aside would be unfair." A contract must follow the formalities set out in the Property (Relationships) Act. Atkin said the main one that must be remembered was that both parties must have independent legal advice. "Failure to do this will of course meant that the contract is on the face of it invalid." Nicola Peart, University of Otago law professor, said a contracting out agreement was still a good way of protecting your assets, even if it was not ironclad. "Assuming the agreement was made with full information and independent legal advice, it can still be challenged if it was seriously unjust at the time or has become seriously unjust at a later point in time." And this is me talking - this is probably a good thing, overall. If you're living together as a couple and your circumstances change, it's reasonable that what was fair at the outset might no longer be. It's a good idea to get your own legal advice about your individual circumstances. We are currently settling an estate. The deceased had a credit card to a third-party lender, a Q Card, not a Q MasterCard. I cannot find any mention of estate obligations should the holder die, which I have seen with other credit cards. Does this mean the estate is not obligated to pay the bill? Michelle Pope, a principal trustee at Public Trust said generally, if a credit card account was held only in the name of the person who died, it would become a debt of the estate, to be paid from their assets. "However, if the account was in joint names, the responsibility for the debt usually passes to the surviving account holder. We're assuming the lender has already been contacted and the terms and conditions have been reviewed. If those terms don't specify what happens when someone dies, then the debt would usually be treated as one that needs to be settled." In 2007, I separated from my ex-husband and started a relationship with my new partner. He said to me that he had put his property and business into a trust so no other partners could get any of his property. I was OK with that because I felt going forward he would look after me if I became his wife and the mother of his children. Fast forward to 2016 I received $135,000 from my mum's inheritance and 2018/2019 $130,000 from dad. We had been renovating this beautiful 100-year-old house and property in which we used my inheritance to renovate it. I was happy as this was our family home and it was lovely, until 2020 when he started an affair and we separated. Do you have any suggestions on how I can get my inheritances recognized in our financial settlement case? Peart says there is a pathway ruling on general equitable principles, in particular the "constructive trust", which has been used to compensate former partners who have made substantial contributions to assets held in a trust where the court is satisfied that she had a reasonable expectation that she would share in the value of her contributions and it is reasonable for the trustees to yield an interest. She said, if you were married, section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act could be a way to get a settlement. This covers the court making orders relating to property. But she said the opportunity for a court to intervene in nuptial settlements and do something for a spouse who was not getting anything was not available to people who were de facto. "She may well be able to rely on general equitable principles, in particular the constructive trust, for an order that the trustees of the trust hold a share of the home on trust for her on the basis of contributions made to the property and a reasonable expectation that those contributions would result in some share of the property. "Aside from that, I wonder whether she was advised by whoever was handling her parents' estates about the risks of losing her entitlements if she used it to renovate the family home. In this case, the risk was even greater, because the family home was in trust. "This highlights the risks involved with commingling an inheritance with relationship property . As discussed last week, to be kept separate, an inheritance needs to be held apart from other property. "An inheritance is separate property under the PRA, but once it is intermingled with relationship property or invested in the family home, it becomes relationship property and is subject to the equal sharing regime," Peart said. "Lawyers advising on distribution of estates commonly give advice about that to the beneficiaries of the estate to make sure they realise the risks of not keeping the inheritance separate." Atkin said any property owned by a trust would not be divided under the act. "There are some exceptions, where the trust ownership may be factored in, for example where the trust is a sham or where one of the parties has so much control under the Act that they are treated as having an interest that can be divided. "Also, in some situations there may be compensation where relationship property, such as the home, has been transferred to a trust during the relationship. There are other points here but, in short, the relevant law where there is a trust is complex and not consistent. The Law Commission has accepted that the law needs to be reformed but the government has shown no signs so far of implementing the Law Commission's recommendations. "Now, what about the inheritance? There is no direct way under the Act of recognising the inheritance. Any claim would be against the trust. If the inheritance money had been packaged as a loan to the trust, then the trust would be in debt to the person who lent the money. However, most people in relationships are unlikely to think about doing this. Another possibility is that the heir can make a claim under laws that apply generally, not just to relationships. A genuine possibility is to claim what the law calls a constructive trust in relation to the formal trust. The latter would have to account for the contribution made by way of the inheritance but success here is by no means guaranteed and what the value of a constructive trust would be is subject to all the factors in the case. Legal advice would be needed and one would hope that a satisfactory negotiated settlement can be reached with the trustees. Trouble is that the ex may well be one of the trustees and may play hard to get."
NZ Herald
15 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Infratil and Ebos help drive NZ stocks higher
Late in the New Zealand trading day, Australia's S&P/ASX 200 was down 43.10 points at 8,666.30. The index has lost 1.04% for the last five days, but sits just 1.25% below its 52-week high. The main influences on the local S&P/NZX50 index were infrastructure investor Infratil, up 26c or 2.3% at $11.45, and medical supplies distributor Ebos, up 41c at $41.17. On the downside, utilities software provider Gentrack dropped by 61c or 5.5% to $10.52 after announcing it had been informed by an Australian customer it was no longer in the frame for replacing the customer's current platform. 'Whilst the financial impact of this does not warrant disclosure, out of caution we are providing this update to our investors,' Gentrack said. Salt Funds managing director Matt Goodson said Gentrack had lost out to its main competitor, Kraken, which is part of Britain's Octopus Energy. 'It should not have come as a shock because it was suspected by some, but the actual confirmation of it has seen the stock fall,' Goodson said. Sky Network TV fell 8c to $3.06 after spiking higher earlier in the week on news it would buy the troubled Discovery NZ for $1. Among the minor issues, takeover target Metro Performance Glass, which has a market cap of $9m, gained 0.3 of a cent to 5c. Competitor Viridian NZ's 8c per share offer for Metro Glass is before the Commerce Commission, which today issued a 'Statement of Issues' relating to the application. 'The commission has identified potential adverse competitive effects arising from a loss of competition between Viridian and Metro in glass processing, supply and installation markets where they are close competitors,' it said. Goodson said the commission 'clearly has issues' with Viridian buying Metro Glass because they are the two major players in glass processing and installation. 'I guess the question then is if Viridian is not allowed, what becomes of Metro Glass, given their debt levels,' Goodson said. Looking ahead, annual meetings on Wednesday for Ryman Healthcare and Mainfreight should give investors some clues as to how the two leading stocks are tracking in the current financial year. Later in the week, second-quarter results from Apple, Amazon and Microsoft – part of America's so-called Magnificent Seven – are due out. In the big picture, the ongoing spat between US President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell continues to be a concern for the financial markets as investors worry about the US central bank's independence. Jamie Gray is an Auckland-based journalist, covering the financial markets, the primary sector and energy. He joined the Herald in 2011.
