Best Agents?

In a comment to my previous post concerning active, knowledgeable agents versus the 90% who eat bon bons by their pools and wait to view properties for the first time with a client (I refer to this as a "mutual voyage of discovery" and consider it a huge waste of the client's time) a reader asks how he can determine who among the 1,000 agents in town is one of the best. Since he already has my name, I'll restrict my remarks to other agents.

There are plenty of good agents in town but, short of posting yourself outside a broker open house all day and seeing who shows up and who doesn't, it's tough to figure out. If you call a brokerage firm's manager and ask for one of the top producing agents (we do represent both buyers and sellers), you might get the right person, but you might also get whoever is on floor duty that day. Depending on who is in the office at the time, this could be good or bad.

Reputation is usually a good sign - ask friends who have recently bought or sold a house who their agent was, and what they thought of her. For large firms with sales recognition programs, check the agent's websites for membership in the firm's top 5% or 1% circle (naturally, I've been in both, so I think this is a great technique!). But the top selling agent last year, town wide, was David Ogilvy, who doesn't employ such showmanship, nor does he need to - see above, under "reputation'. My brother Gideon works for Cleveland, Duble and Arnold and they, too don't have top producer awards yet his name will be found among the top sellers. Jean Ruggiero, my colleague here at William Raveis, is not only the second-most productive agent in Greenwich, she's got an excellent reputation for success and has also been a member of the Raveis "Chairman's Elite Club" forever, so there you have it.

My personal experience is that the agent is more important than the firm he or she works for. We all have websites, some of which are better than others, we all have "international connections", for what they're worth (generally, very little) and we are all capable of exposing your house to the Multiple Listing Service, which is what will probably sell your house, eventually. So comfort level and confidence should take priority. Until this year, I'd have insisted that you check how many transactions a candidate did in the past year, just to get a feel for their familiarity with the market place but today? A fellow agent came into the office last week, crowing that she'd just been out with a buyer. I suggested that she stick the guy in formaldehyde and preserve him as the last of his breed.

So ask around, make some calls, talk with a number of agents and either ask them about or check their resume. And, even in a slow market, you should probably keep your listing to six months, so that you can get out of an ill-fitting relationship. For you buyers - if you're out there - be especially careful about signing a "buyer's representation agreement" that locks you in for more than a day or two. especially if you've never met the agent before. State law requires that we get you to sign such an agreement the first time we meet face-to-face, but the agreement can be limited to just a few specific houses or one day. The worst thing you can do to yourself is sign up for six months exclusive representation with someone who, on your first tour you discover is incompatible. I use one-day agreements, but I am aware of agents who try to lock customers in for six months or even, in the most egregious example, a full year. Someone who's that insecure about getting along with you is probably no one you want to do business with.

Good news, bad news

The good news is that 1 Flagler Drive, asking $5,900,000, went to contract over the weekend, presumably for something less than asking price but proof nonetheless that there are still some deep-pocketed buyers out there. The bad news is that this gargantuan (by my standards - at 11,000 sq.ft. it's probably tiny for other folk's taste) mansion sat on the market since September 2, 2005, when it asked $8,495,000. Lesson here, I suppose, is that if you slash $2.5-$3.0 million from your asking price, you'll eventually sell anything in this price range. Another lesson is don't be so silly in the first place.

A New low in euphemism

Greenwich Time refers today to "anti-prohibitionists" who used to run booze up my creek and stash it at what is now Dot McCullough's boat house. Didn't we used to call these folks "rum runners"? More colorful and far more accurate: I'm pretty sure that the criminals were very much in favor of Prohibition, because it enabled them to make huge, albeit illicit fortunes - just ask Joe Kennedy.

By the way, I hate using Greenwich Time's website because of the pop-up ad for Greenwich Hospital that floats across the screen, blocking access to the main article. I don't know how much the paper is receiving for this ad, but I'd think the cost of reader annoyance exceeds the fee.

Don't Taser me, Bro!

Our School Board has sent out a survey to parents, asking if they "support a school resource officer at the high school". The Board eschewed the use of such inflammatory language as "armed and tasered" because they apparently feared that using the more accurate description might alarm parents and cause them to withhold their support for a program the Board itself obviously endorses. "School Resources Officer" sounds so benign - officer Friendly, there to help students find their lost textbooks, perhaps coax a stray kitten from a tree or maybe help out with a tough homework assignment. The reality is that at least one such officer tasered a kid last year for kicking a chair and tossing a water balloon - a dastardly deed, but, speaking as someone who lobbed 1/2 a grapefruit across the Student Center at a group of visiting educators way back in 1971, hardly a capital offense.

The trouble with giving cops toys like Tasers or, God help us, lots of really cool SWAT Team equipment is that, sooner or later, they're going to want to use it. I say, if we're that concerned about a Columbine at the High School, either arm the teachers or take the taser away from the cop. Someone might still get killed, I suppose, but the temptation to use non-lethal force beyond a head-lock would be removed.

Over-sized houses

I had to reset my computer's P Ram yesterday (don't ask) and it seems to have killed my ability to import photos. Drat - I was planning to start adding photos today, beginning with a picture of a new house under construction at 247 Riverside Avenue. Well, maybe later. In the meantime, if you're in the neighborhood, take a look at this place. It might not be a bad looking house in another location on a larger lot but it's replacing an 1800's farmhouse that had been set far back from the road and, no doubt because of lot-size restrictions, the builder has stuck a huge garage on the end facing the street. The total effect is just butt-ugly, is what it is, and it annoys me to think that it doubtless complies with all applicable FAR regulations. It's precisely here, where the street scape is threatened, that FAR rules should operate to save us but they don't. FAR is a complex, ineffective and costly mess, and yet, the more this is pointed out and solutions proposed, the tighter Franklin Bloomer and his friends on the land use commission grip their creation. Pride of authorship is a good thing; so, too, is the ability to admit when you're wrong.

Update
Figured out the photo thing (for today, anyway)

The polar bears are drowning! (next year)

Alaska is experiencing its coldest summer ever (in recent history, I presume). Climate experts have rushed to explain that this says nothing about global warming and boy, watch out for next year, but as one commentator notes in the linked article, how come every cooling phenomenon is attributed to natural causes and every warming spell is blamed on humans? It's embarrassing data like this that caused the almost-subtle switch last year from "global warming" to "climate change". Once the terminology was changed, everything that happens on earth can be blamed on people who live in 26,000 sq.ft. homes and fly private jets to Bali - oh wait, that's not right.

Amazing News

The New York Times hasn't done much reporting on the surge in Iraq's success but suddenly it's catching up with what less mainstream sources - .bloggers in Iraq, primarily - have been noticing for months: things are getting better. Oil production is up from 1 million barrels a month to 18 , and the Shiite militias are weakened, for instance. Why this sudden outpouring of good news? It could be that the Times has finally noticed what's been going on, I suppose, but I suspect that the paper, like all Obama supporters, wants to get Iraq behind him. His (continued) opposition to the surge, so clearly wrong in retrospect, makes him look like the inexperienced naif that he is, notwithstanding his photo-ops with various world leaders last week. But if Iraq's "so yesterday", then let's move on to things that really matter, like raising taxes on the "rich" and ruining our health care, the only things Obama fans really care about anyway.

Opne Houses

A reader asked how often an agent should hold open houses for a property. He specifically asked about broker open houses, but both broker (agent, technically) and public open houses are worth some comment. Broker open houses are essential - there's no substitute for actually going inside a house, gauging the quality of its construction, the exact noise level of the street outside, the "flow" of the house and so forth; you get none of that from merely reading the Internet listing.

But, of the 1000 real estate agents in town, probably only 100 can be bothered to go out and examine the inventory on Tuesdays (North Street and west) and Thursdays (east of North Street). What are the other 900 doing? God knows, but I certainly wouldn't want to use their services if all they can contribute to my knowledge is what's already on Realtor.com. A good broker open house is one that draws 30-40 agents. You'll never get full attendance of the 100 because, not surprisingly, those 100 are our most successful agents and they are often busy conducting their own open houses. So I'd suggest holding 2 open houses in the first 2-4 weeks, just to give everyone who's going to come a chance to see the property. After that, every 6 weeks is probably not a bad idea - we don't like returning to a property but if something's happened; a price drop, or a new buyer for that price range, we can be lured back for a refresher.

Public open houses are, if not a scam, not really going to do much to sell your house. You'll draw nosy neighbors, a fair bunch of lookers and, very rarely, an actual customer. I think only 1% of viewers at a public open house end up buying that particular house, so your odds aren't good. On the other hand, agents like the events because our success rate in selling visitors a house other than yours is much better than 1%. There are buyers, after all, mixed in with the mere lookers - they just may not like your house. I've been known to bring my notebook computer to an open house and, if a couple clearly isn't interested in the house I'm showing, I'll pull up other choices in their price range. And because I've usually seen all those houses and am familiar with them, it gives me a chance to show off my knowledge. Good for me, tough luck for you - sorry.

So you can have a public open house every weekend, if you wish (your agent, who often is busy on weekends showing other customers around town, may be reluctant, but we can usually find a new agent willing to cover, in the hope that she'll find a new customer). Given the low odds of success in this endeavor, I think once a month is a more realistic schedule but, especially in a dead market, when the only hope of unloading a property is to keep slashing its price and the seller won't do that, we all tend to adopt the professional politicians' mantra, "when in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout". A public open house is the moral equivalent of that.

An ebbing tide lowers all boats

New York City's financial firms expect to slash their bonuses by at least $10 billion this year and some experts are predicting cuts 2 or even 3X larger. While politicians love attacking Wall Streeters' excesses, New York City's and New York state's revenue will drop 10% and 20% respectively, based solely on the lowest estimate. If the cuts turn out to be as large as the more pessimistic forecasters say, you can do the appropriate math.

A lot of those people who won't be receiving year-end party checks this year live in Connecticut so our own state's revenue can be expected to be impacted (guess which county's residents Hartford will look to to make up the loss?) and, of course, it was these huge bonuses that kept the Greenwich real estate market so strong. As Joni Mitchell sang,"you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone".

The Mighty keep dropping

14 Baldwin Farms South, 13,500 sq.ft. of new construction, was put up for sale in May, 2007, asking $9,795.000 (that's $725 per sf, if you like that measurement). Not a bad house, but there were no takers, so its price has been gradually dropping. Today the seller whacked it again, down to $7,445,000 ($551 sq.ft). Don't know whether that will do the trick for this house, but, while we're not yet approaching the "affordable housing" threshold, we're getting there.

Update
Zillow.com, by the way, estimates this house's value at $7,652,000 (I love their precision) which, until today's price drop, was more accurate than the owner's opinion. On the other hand, and while I was on their site, I looked up a house with which I am quite familiar. They have it pegged at $1,495,000 which, if it weren't on a tidal creek, would probably be about right. But it is on the creek and that waterfront aspect adds, I hope, an additional $500K or so to its value. I don't fault Zillow - how the hell would they know? - but it does demonstrate that local knowledge is always a nice thing to have.

It's not about real estate, but (I think) it's funny
From an Englishman who wasn't impressed by Obama's European tour.

Update
Okay, it's been a slow morning for real estate, so here's a bit more Obama bashing (fans of the Messiah should avert their eyes). First, despite what he claimed in Berlin, there's no drought in Kansas, Dorothy. But never mind a lack of dust bowls,there's plenty else to fib about,as detailed here. I've grown used to Al Gore being given a free pass to spew nonsense, but he's not running for President. Couldn't the press ask a bit more from this ward-heeler from Chicago?

Is Zillow watching?
Within an hour of posting a comment about Zillow.com a nice-sounding fellow named David Gibbons replied on behalf, he says, of Zillow itself. What gives? Does Zillow have some sort of internet crawler that searches for references to itself and flashes the news back to headquarters? Is Mr. Gibbons actually a local resident who just happens to know more about Zillow than me? The latter is easily accomplished. I see that the gentleman has posted a second comment, requesting feedback on how sellers react when Zillow's price estimate is lower than their own. In my experience, it's the other way around - the few times a potential client has tossed a Zillow quote in my face, I usually have to argue for a price even lower. But Mr. Gibbons, I'll be happy to aaddrss the question in detail if you'll tell me how you found this tiny blog! Inquiring minds want to know.

Untold tales
I just went on Zillow.com's website to see what they're up to and noticed a house for sale (by owner) located at 12 Lockwood Road in Riverside and asking, according to Zillow, $6,000,000. Zillow estimates its worth at $2,566,000 and I think even that figure's high. The current owners paid $2,305,000 for it in March of last year and apparently have done nothing to it, so what gives? Is this seller insanity or an error by Zillow? If it's Zillow's fault, the owner ought to check his bait more often. If the seller himself set the price, it only serves as a demonstration of why some objective advice can sometimes be a good thing.

Update
As a commentator notes below, this is a Zillow feature called "make me move", which is, as he or she says, a "pie in the sky" price placed on it by the owner w/o any intention of actually placing it on the market. Good thing, too, because,as I saw in another Zillow listing, it looks like these owners aren't going anywhere soon. I do wonder, though, at Zillow's own calculation of value. The owner of 16 Willow Road's "make me move" price is $3,995,000, which ain't gonna happen; Zillow's own estimate is $3,600,000 and that's not reality either, in my opinion. 2 Willow, a more modern house, sold for $3,100,000, in a better market. If you're selling moving services, don't bother with these guys.

Our man in Washington
There's an interesting discussion going on in the comments section of the previous post concerning Wall Street, Washington and in general, pigs at the trough. In the meantime, the question of Senator Chris Dodd coming up, I thought to confirm my suspicion that his "presidential nomination campaign" served as nothing more than a sop to his ego and a sponge for the campaign contributions he could solicit (or extort) because of his position as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. As for ego, there's no doubt that every boy and girl serving in the Senate believes, deep down, that he's qualified to be President. But it takes an ego of truly gargantuan dimensions to act on that belief when polls list you at 1% voter recognition. That didn't stop Dodd, of course, particularly when he could indulge his aspirations at the expense of the financial community he regulates. Sure enough, the senator put the touch on his new best friends. Try this or, for a general overview from years past (I believe this latter doesn't include his presidential campaign contributions, which are tabulated separately) this.

Dodd learned from his father, of course, that direct solicitation of bribes leads to trouble, but squeezing folks you can choose to put out of business, well that's just Washington politics. Years ago, William F. Buckley pointed out that our Senator from New London regularly voted against every single defense appropriation except those supporting new nuclear submarines. It's certainly possible, as Buckley posited, that the senator truly believed that the only weapon that could protect our nation from its enemies was the nuclear sub. On the other hand, cynics might be forgiven for suspecting that the man was just a hollow, greedy shill who looked out for his interests and his interests only. I was one of those cynics oh so long ago and I've never changed my opinion.

Wall Street hearts Fannie Mae
Good article here in Bloomberg News concerning the pending bailout of Fannie Mae. It starts out with the rather typical cautionary tale of a borrower seduced by a sub-prime lender and her eventual rescue by her friendly government bank, but then proceeds to discuss, or at least touch upon, the various scandals, fraudulent accounting and other difficulties that have plagued this entity. Why does Jamie Diamon, head of JP Morgan Chase, love Fannie Mae? Why did Warren Buffet dump all his holdings of its stock three years ago? You really should explore some of the Wall Street Journal editorials that condemned Fannie Mae over the past decade for a full understanding but essentially, Jamie Diamon and his ilk could make a lot of money peddling crap and unloading it on Fannie Mae and Mr. Buffet has different standards. Of course, when you add in the cash contributions Fannie Mae made to Chris Dodd and his cronies over the years, it's hardly surprising that this fraud was permitted to operate for so long. And will continue to do so, apparently - just ask The Journal.

Mea Culpa
There's a nice post in the comments section from Pam, who gently reminds me that I used to defend the strength of the Greenwich market. It's true, I did: I did point out what I thought were over-priced houses, and cautioned that, obviously, prices couldn't keep increasing 20% per year, every year, but I was fond of saying that, so long as NYC continued to attract the best, brightest and most ambitious young people from around the world, they'd continue to meet, fall in love, have babies and look toward the suburbs to raise those babies. Because Greenwich is one of the best of those suburbs, I was pretty confident that we'd continue to get our share of new blood, and buyers. But "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition" and I didn't expect the collapse of the credit market and the subsequent downturn on Wall Street. Greenwich never had many sub-prime mortgages or large spec developments to begin with so when the sub-prime lenders and real estate speculators started to topple I thought the disaster would be limited to places like California and Florida. Wrong.

But, long term, I still like our position. There will always be money to be made lending to millionaires, and we're still not adding any new land, so I expect to see a recovery not too long in the future (unless Wall Street and its bankers disappear and the financial world shifts to Dubai, a not entirely impossible scenario). If you own a house that you want to sell, hang on and hope. If you're thinking of buying, I'd look silly suggesting that prices won't continue falling, but as interest and construction costs keep rising, you might want to grab a good deal now - if you don't have to resell in the next few years, I think you'll do just fine.

Pricing
There were 26 price reductions reported yesterday, compared with 2 contracts. Not an encouraging ratio. One reduction that caught my eye was for 4 Old Round Hill, a big, almost new mansion just off of Round Hill itself. This place was originally priced in May '06 at $14,500,000 and slowly dropped to $12.5M a year later. Still unsold, the seller increased its price to $13.995M the next day; not a tactic I'd ordinarily recommend. It's been dropping ever since and yesterday took another hit, coming down another million to $10.9. So two years after first being offered for sale, it's still unsold and is now $3.5M less. The first price was obviously (in retrospect) too aggressive, even for the 2006 market. In today's market, the new price may still be too high. Somewhere in the past two years, I suspect, a realistic price would have moved this house but now, who knows? It's a very nice house with a great location and yard, but is anyone buying?

HoJo's
Thanks to two intrepid readers, Pam, who remembered what letter the place would start with, and Jess, who actually tracked down the article, we learn the following:

"From the Greenwich Post:

Jun 5, 2008
Going up in Blue Smoke
Howard Johnson to house new restaurant; plans for hotel
By Sonia Fernandez, Staff Reporter

The Howard Johnson will be renovated as the Delmar opens a new hotel at that location and Blue Smoke takes the place of Tandoori restaurant
Blue Smoke will be sweeping through Greenwich as Union Square Hospitality Group prepares to open its first restaurant outside New York City.

Named after its predecessor on 27th Street and Park Avenue, Blue Smoke Chophouse will move into the space that was occupied by the Howard Johnson in Riverside, along with a new hotel operated by the same group that operates the Delamar Greenwich Harbor hotel....

The Union Square Hospitality Group has enhanced the ambiance of the restaurant by focusing on wood-fired cooking. Not only will the meats be wood-smoked, but the grills and ovens will also be wood-fired....

Plans to renovate the Howard Johnson and the attached Tandoori restaurant were submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 19, but have been dropped as both the hotel and restaurant are being gutted to make room for the new plans.

While the new hotel has yet to start the planning and zoning process, Mr. Swinghamer said he hopes the restaurant will be ready by next summer . . . .

[end of article]

I love both Cajun and barbeque, so I'll probably give this a try - if the estimated completion date is accurate, I'll have a year to save up for the experience.

Funny thing - when I Googled HoJo's Riverside to see if there were any stories about its future I found lots of information on the old place with no hint that you won't be staying there again - surprise! and a map locating the motel just over the Stamford border. I suppose that, since it's closed anyway, a little misdirection won't harm anyone but how many other Google maps are this far off? Makes me want to rethink tossing out my old paper maps.

Price reductions

The condos on South Water Street have just had their prices cut by several hundred thousand dollars each. Not too surprising, but it's too bad for the developers. I think they stood a better chance of success before the town zoning folks made them slash the number of units and amenities. You'd think we didn't want Byram developed, or something.