« Friday Linkage New Businesses at the Navy Yard »

December 22, 2006

Does Size Matter?

sumo
New York Magazine this week discusses the pros and cons of large and small brokerage firms. The boutiques tout their level of personal attention and special knowledge of particular neighborhoods while the biggies point to their marketing reach and resources. “If anyone wants to put their record up of how many $10 million [plus] deals they’ve made, we’re happy to do so,” says Corcoran president Pam Liebman. How about in Brooklyn? Have you had better experiences with large or small? And does it matter whether you're buying or selling?
Small Wonders [New York]
Photo from funnyjunk.com




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:55 AM | Comments (13)
Categories: Brokers

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/184

Comments

comparing gross numbers of $10mm deals is not the metric to use; the big boys will always win on that. they'd have to poll clients on their level of satisfaction to tell where small brokers rank.

Posted by: anon at December 22, 2006 10:29 AM

In brownstone Brooklyn, I have found that the smaller brokerage houses (Nancy McKiernan and Eva Daniels come to mind), are much more knowledgeable and candid about the product, neighborhood, and changes on the horizon. I also find that they tend to live in the neighborhoods they service, and, are thus, better students of the various factors that go into buying or selling a house. My first question to any prospective broker (big firm or small) is "where do you live?"

Posted by: crouchback at December 22, 2006 11:11 AM

I'm a type of person who likes alot of attn from my rep. I like the less corporate way of operating, so therefore I like dealing with the smaller firms. However, that being said, the larger ones like Corcoran, etc. do have the outreach and resources that the smaller firms don't have.

I start small and work outwards from there in researching my information, and go with my gut ultimately. That works for me.

Posted by: Aunt Helen at December 22, 2006 12:04 PM

The only thing that small ones are good for are for RENTALS, since they know the old local landlords and usually have below-market rents and sometimes a 1-month-rent broker fee, and more inventory. When it comes to SALES, the only thing that small ones are good for are the few listings of old locals that are again wooed into low listing prices!

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2006 1:19 PM

Crouchback's question is a great one. I have a terrific (big firm) broker who has lived in the neighborhood for years, sold me my current place and is 100% on top of prices/sales, co-op board reputations and residents, and all the real-estate gossip. When I expanded my recent townhouse search outside her area, I was disturbed at how little she seemed to know and how sloppy she seemed - she gave me a lazy and inaccurate list of comparables, fell back on brokerspeak rather than real knowledge in pointing out the selling points of properties, and was in no way equipped to give me the insight that makes her such an asset in my current nabe.

Having said that, my encounter with one small firm, Heights Berkeley, was way less than impressive.

As a seller, I'd want the reach and advertising clout of a big firm as long as my broker was informed and preferably lived in the area. As a buyer, I'd prefer a small local broker OR a big-firm broker with excellent area knowledge.

Posted by: zeebee at December 22, 2006 3:09 PM

My experience in searching for a home in Bed-Stuy made me think that they're all worthless if you're a buyer. Since they're seller's agents and it was/is a hot area no one had an incentive to provide you with any real service. We met with at least 20 agents over the course of 2 years. Pls spare me the hate mail about how we must have had a laundry list of must-haves - we were disillusioned long before we started looking. BK=Wild Wild West of real estate

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2006 3:15 PM

Three years ago I tried to use a small broker to sell my Brooklyn Heights apartment. Nobody even came looking.The listing was there for a month, and we took it off the market. A few months later I went to Corcoran, which suggested an aggressive price. Within a week there were two offers at asking. The Corcoran broker lived in the building, so she knew it, but still -- a pretty good example of why a larger brokerage might be better.

Posted by: John P. at December 22, 2006 3:54 PM

The correction in the market will weed out some of the less talented or less hardworking agents, this coming year.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2006 6:11 PM

I sold my place through Brown Harris Stevens in Park Slope. They really know what they are doing in that office. They showed it all the time, staffed the open houses and handled everything for me. I was thrilled to get away from Corcoran's corporate approach. They have a ton of agents and a lot of them just plain scare me.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2006 6:30 PM

I know Corcoran agents in the Fort Greene office who live in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed Stuy, Crown Heights, Prospect Heights, and Park Slope. Regardless, everyone I've dealt with has been very knowledgeable about all of these areas -- it's kind of hard not to be, when they're all so close to each other.

And if you're working with a broker as a buyer, that broker is working for you. You run into trouble when you're dealing with the same broker who has the listing. Typcial of the problem encountered when dealing with small firms -- they don't co-broke, aren't members of REBNY, etc. If you go to an open house alone (without a broker) you're lost.

NYS defines three types of arrangements here, and requires their disclosure for all sales and rentals of 1 - 4 family properties. First you have separate buyer's and seller's agents (with both working for different firms, i.e, Corcoran and BHS); next you have one broker (like only Corcoran), but two different individuals, one working with the buyer and one with the seller. The least desirable is "dual agency," in which one person represents both. This can only be done, under NYS law, with the written consent of both parties, who must acknowledge that, "the agent will not be able to provide the full range of fiduciary duties to" either party (taken from the state's agency disclosure form). Any broker in this situation who doesn't get you to sign this form is violating NYS law.

So, sorry, anon 3:15, it just isn't true that they're all seller's agents. Maybe you should give it another try, by going first to visit a broker and then going with him/her to see the properties.

Posted by: babs at December 22, 2006 7:35 PM

The seller pays 100% of the comission so Corcoran is playing around with fire if they think that they have agents acting as the buyer's broker. I don't think they disclose that to their sellers when they sign a listing agreement so that they know that only the listing agent is working for them and everybody else at the firm is working on the other side. This is just confusing the buyers or lying to sellers I think.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2006 9:34 PM

Why would a seller want to list with a broker such as Corcoran if most of the agents work for the buyers? If the commission is paid by the seller that seller should have every agent working for him or her. The buyer would have all the advantages and the seller loses. It seems the smaller firms can provide better service for a seller.

Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 11:44 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions