April 25, 2008

Los Angeles Real Estate: Hot or Not?

On Monday, we looked at what makes a property hot in Boston, so we’re closing the week with a look at a market on the other coast: Los Angeles. The big question: will we see the same trends coast to coast?

We found there really are (hot) pockets of sunshine in the Los Angeles housing market, and this is not according to my trusty Magic 8-ball. We analyzed 2,364 real estate records for single-family listings in Los Angeles County, Calif. that entered the market between Oct. 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008, and sold.

We looked at the Los Angeles real estate market next because, well, you asked.

Here’s a rundown of the neighborhoods with the most listings that sold within seven days on the market; the numbers in parentheses calculate the hot properties as a percentage of the total houses that sold in those areas:

• Beverly Center, Miracle Mile: 12 (26%)
• Brentwood: 12 (27%)
• Los Angeles, Southwest: 10 (12%)
• Sunset Strip, Hollywood Hills West: 10 (11%)
• Westchester: 9 (17%)

For the areas where there were a significant number of hot properties, we compared the listings that sold in seven days or less with everything else that sold in those areas. Our goal was to develop a clear portrait of the hot property, so our buyers would know when they really had to hop to it. And here’s what we found:

• Beds and baths were the same for both types: there was no pattern in terms of bedrooms and bathrooms. Hot and “not” (not properties took more than eight days to sell) properties both had three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The coasts agree!
• Hot properties are bigger, slightly: The median square footage for hot properties was only slightly larger (.2%) than not properties, but the median lot size was 3% larger. Clearly, the LA sprawl doesn’t mean buyers get more space. Boston homebuyers got 13% larger lots with pretty similar sized homes – 1,669 square feet in Boston vs. 1,735 square feet in LA.
• Hot properties are newer: the median year built (1948) for hot properties was four years earlier than for the nots. Bostonians bought slightly older homes, but maybe that’s because most east coast homes are older?
  Hot properties are expensive: it turns out that hot properties weren’t exactly priced to move. In fact, the median list price of hot properties ($1.1 million) was 16% higher. And the high price isn’t just because the houses are bigger: the median dollars per square foot was nearly 16% higher for hot properties ($633) as compared to the nots ($548). The median list price of Boston’s hot properties was $459,000 … you can get two for the price of one in Boston.

There wasn’t a huge difference in the days on market for the hot areas (43) and the entire Los Angeles market (45), but, on average, the hot properties sold in almost five days (Boston hot properties sold in about 4.5 days).

The bottom line is that hot properties are slightly bigger, newer and more expensive. There are distinct areas and house types where properties still sell fast, which continues to support our reason for doing this study in the first place — the real estate market isn’t really clinically depressed; it’s more of a split personality, with the good stuff selling fast, and the rest languishing.

Did you just buy a home in one of these neighborhoods? What was your experience?

Bonus link: The Wall Street Journal reports on the heartwarming side of the housing bust. [Warning: shameless Redfin plug] Read about a couple who escaped their 100-mile, LA-freeway commute.

April 21, 2008

Boston Real Estate: Not Clinically Depressed, Just a Split Personality

Redfin’s Chris Glew — Redfin Advantage essayist, Boston hockey fan and student of ancient Mexican turds — stopped another fur-flying meeting in its tracks last week with an arresting observation. He said that even in this slow real estate market, he could tell just by looking when a new listing was going to sell in a couple of days. “I see it all the time,” he said, to a now-quiet room.

Whereupon further fur flew. Someone said that the only common characteristic would be a fire-sale price. Others talked about school districts, sex offenders, safe neighborhoods. And then someone quoted the founder of modern surgery, a corpse-stealing pragmatist who challenged the French mania for grand medical theories: “why think when you can experiment?”

Why indeed!

So the Real Estate Scientist leapt into his white lab coat and began sorting through 9,212 real estate records: single-family listings in Suffolk County, Massachusetts that were sold between October 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008.

Why the Boston real estate market? Because our ex-hippie, oils-painting, die-for-the-customer, hired-all-his-cousins market manager — Alex Coon — laid it on the line, betting that such listings exist, even in the dead of the miserable Boston winter, and that most of them would be in Newton. He was right!

Here’s a rundown of the towns with the most listings that sold within seven days on the market; the numbers in parentheses calculate the hot properties as a percentage of the total houses that sold in those areas:

• Arlington: 18 (23%)
• Boston: 21 (7%)
• Brockton: 16 (8%)
• Haverhill: 11 (12%)
• Needham: 14 (20%)
• Newton: 27 (16%)
• Wellesley: 12 (14%)

But it’s not just the location of the listings. Even in these markets, the average days on market was 85 days. The average for the entire Boston area was 105. This suggests that at least one reason hot properties were hot was the property itself.

So for the areas where there were a significant number of hot properties, we compared the listings that sold in less than seven days with everything else in those areas. Our goal was to develop a clear portrait of the hot property, so our buyers would know when they really had to hop to it. And here’s what we found:

• Beds and baths were the same for both types: there was no pattern in terms of bedrooms and bathrooms. Hot properties and pariguayos (party-watchers, aka slow-to-sell properties) both had 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.
• Hot properties are bigger: The median square footage for hot properties was 7% larger than the pariguayos. The median lot size was more than 13% larger. Maybe that seems obvious to you — bigger is often better — but when we began the analysis, we had imagined hot properties as cute little cottages.
• Hot properties are older: the median year built (1949) for hot properties was 29% earlier than for the pariguayos.
• Hot properties are expensive: it turns out that hot properties weren’t exactly priced to move. In fact, the median list price of hot properties ($459,000) was 78% higher than the pariguayos. And the high price isn’t just because the houses are bigger: the median dollars per square foot was nearly 40% higher for hot properties ($275) as compared to pariguayos.

The bottom line is that hot properties are bigger, older, and more expensive. That there are distinct areas and house types where properties still sell fast supports Chris’s notion that the real estate market isn’t really clinically depressed; it’s more of a split personality, with the good stuff selling fast, and the rest languishing.

You could take that theory a step further, and say one reason the market is bad is because the inventory is low-quality, first because some of the least appealing properties are being forced onto the market by foreclosure and second because lots of unappealing inventory is hanging out from the year before when the rate of new listings was higher. We’ll have to test that theory out on another day.

Bostonians, what do you think of these findings? Real estate watchers, what other markets would you like to see us analyze? Many thanks to Redfin’s Rick West for doing all the hard analytical work.

Bonus Link, from the Original Friend of Redfin: Washington Redskins cheerleaders stun massive Indian cricket crowd.

Also, since cycling season is about to begin, we are releasing some new footage of the Redfin cycling team on a training ride:

Photo: Shutterscript on Flickr.

March 11, 2008

Typical is Boring, but When Selling a Home, Effective

A recent Redfin Forums contributor raised the question: Does a higher buyers’ agent commission = faster sale? From Baltimore to Seattle to Southern California, real estate agents and journalists have endorsed the idea of offering unusually large commissions so buyer’s agents will recommend a listing.

Because we’re curious masochists, we decided to answer that question. But first we had to establish what constitutes a “higher” commission. Higher than what? While traditionally the seller has offered the buyer’s agent 3% of the final home price and reserved 3% for his own agent, the very existence of a standard commission has been hotly disputed. Again, some notes from the fray: Realtors from Canada to Florida insist that a standard commission doesn’t exist, while professors from Berkeley and the Hudson Institute insist that it does.

Of course, Redfin’s business model demonstrates that it’s possible to charge different commissions. But Redfin has always been careful when listing a home to encourage our clients to offer the buyer’s agent 3%, even while accepting a lower fee for ourselves. In this at least, we’re like everybody else. We analyzed commissions paid to buyers’ agents for all broker-listed residential homes sold in King County in 2007, and found that 79% paid commissions of exactly 3% to buyers’ agents. Whether 79% adoption constitutes standard behavior or not, it is certainly common behavior.

The average commission, factoring in the lower and higher commissions as well, was 2.88%. The chart below (source: NWMLS) shows the average commission grouped by list price of the house. Most agents will tell you that the commission as a percent of the list price is lower for more expensive homes. We found this to be true: for list prices above $2 million, the average commission started getting closer to 2.5% than 3%.

Because of the difference in commission rate for more expensive homes, we broke our data set into two parts: homes listed above $2 million and homes listed below $2 million. We focus here on the homes listed below $2 million because it’s a more interesting set– it’s much larger and the effects are a lot greater as well. This data set included 22,673 home sales.

Table: Home Sales, King County Residential Homes, 2007

Rick West in our real estate group and Chris Wilkins in engineering ran the numbers, and the results were not as expected. That’s exactly why we created The Real Estate Scientist: to ferret out the data behind the myths and assumptions.

Homes offering a commission higher than 3% actually had a lower sale-to-list price than homes offering a 3% commission, by about 0.82%, or the equivalent of $4,095 on a $500,000 home. We had hypothesized that a higher commission would correlate to a better result for the seller. In contrast, homes offering a commission below 3% did get a better result for the seller: they had a higher sale-to-list price, by 0.54% or the equivalent of $2,719 on a $500,000 home.

The real difference between these groups was in days on market: homes that offered a 3% commission took 68 days to sell, while homes that offered a lower commission took about 30% longer, and homes that offered a higher commission took almost twice as long.

According to our data, setting a higher commission to get better results doesn’t work. It’s best to be typical, with respect to commissions.

How should we interpret this data? Is it the doing of the seller’s agent, who offers a lower commission on a property he knows will sell, and a higher commission on a property he thinks will be difficult to move? Or was the high commission itself a signal of desperation that encouraged negotiating? We tend to think that unusually high commissions are a symptom rather than the cause of a distressed listing. Whatever the case may be, the Seattle data suggest that offering buyer’s agents an unusually high commission isn’t worth it. If you have a different take on our results, just leave a comment.

February 27, 2008

The Broken Tower and the Ivory Tower

Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt renew their argument that real estate brokers aren’t worth 6%, citing a study (PDF) conducted by Stanford economist B. Douglas Bernheim and one of his graduate students, Jonathan Meer, which shows that using a broker has no effect on a home’s average selling price.

We are an (online) broker ourselves, but have argued that consumers should be able to choose the real estate services for which they pay, so I’m not sure we have a dog in this fight. In the past, we have welcomed studies showing that buyers and sellers can get along without a broker, and argued that a client working with an online broker negotiates a better price. But in this case I was surprised that the Freakonomics team didn’t evaluate the Stanford economists’ methodology.

The Stanford study only evaluated 800 homes sold on the Stanford campus, “the ownership of which is limited to Stanford faculty and a limited number of senior staff.” In such an environment, marketing is much easier because of the small number of potential buyers, trust is high because of the buyers’ affiliations with one another, and supply is extremely limited: many academics would kill, or even teach an extra freshman survey course, to live on the Stanford campus.

Moreover, there is no broker-operated MLS on the Stanford campus, and likely no other broker representing the buyer, so there is no rationale for buyers’ brokers to steer clients away from properties not paying a commission. It seems like a leap to draw conclusions from this data set for the typical consumer, who is probably selling a home in a larger market, with more competition, to strangers largely represented by brokers.

In real estate and in life, college is a smaller, more perfect vision of how the rest of the world could be. We thought it was interesting that the previous academic study on brokers’ effectiveness focused on Madison, Wisconsin, because this is also a small college community where alternative approaches to real estate have reached critical mass. Maybe these communities point the way to a post-brokerage world waiting for all us, where both sides abandon their brokers, where we can access information for ourselves online, where we can come to terms more easily and economically.

For now though, we should at least take such findings with a grain of salt, because the Stanford campus isn’t the Hobbesian jungle of, say, the Orange County real estate market. We revere the Freakonomics team, who inspired us to offer real estate e-commerce in the first place, but it seems a bit too credulous to present these findings without acknowledging that Stanford, far more even than Madison, is a different world.

Bonus link: a consumer reviews the best real estate search sites… photo credit: To Mr. “Leaning Right” on Flickr.

Also, the NYT obituary on William F. Buckley is unusually good:

“No other act can project simultaneous hints that he is in the act of playing Commodore of the Yacht Club, Joseph Goebbels, Robert Mitchum, Maverick, Savonarola, the nice prep school kid next door, and the snows of yesteryear,” Norman Mailer said in an interview with Harpers in 1967… For Murray Kempton, one of his many friends on the left, the Buckley press conference style called up “an Edwardian resident commissioner reading aloud the 39 articles of the Anglican establishment to a conscript of assembled Zulus.” A friend of mine was, as a teenager, once fundraising door-to-door in Buckley’s Stamford neighborhood, and William F. Buckley invited him in and held forth at length on obscure topics…

January 14, 2008

The Real Estate Scientist Strikes Again: Pricing Your Home

This month’s issue of The Atlantic reports on research by Cornell University’s Manoj Thomas and his colleagues which found that consumers perceive round prices, such as $390,000, as being higher than prices such as $391,534. Round prices were in turn found to be correlated with a lower final sales price. Professor Thomas’s research, posted to the Web last week, validated findings first reported by Redfin in March 2007, based on an analysis of more than 30,000 2006 homes sales in Seattle, Washington. We would have included our March 2007 findings in our original Real Estate Scientist report, but worried that our data lacked a plausible rationale.

The Cornell study, which evaluated empirical data for 27,000 home sales in Florida and Long Island but also included a controlled trial, took the next step to understand the consumer behavior behind the numbers: when researchers presented 90 college undergraduates with a hypothetical home for sale at different prices and asked if the home were overpriced, the subjects were more likely to say that a home was overpriced if the asking price was a round number. Professor Thomas and his colleagues posited that consumers associate round prices with high-priced items such as a car, and precise prices with low-priced items such as a pair of jeans.

It seems like his findings could help plenty of people: despite the conclusion that a round price is associated with an unfavorable result, Professor Thomas found that more than 63% of homes sold in Long Island and Florida had an asking price ending in three zeros. Of course, since real estate is a competitive marketplace, if everybody took this advice, it wouldn’t help anybody.

It is interesting to compare the Redfin study with the Cornell research:

• Redfin organized home sales into different buckets according to the last three digits of the asking price, and found that homes with an asking price ending in -500, such as $391,500, had the highest sales price-to-asking-price ratio. By contrast, Professor Thomas found that every zero in the final three digits was correlated with a lower final price.
• In Redfin’s study, the size of the effect for the last three digits of a house price was never greater than a .58%, whereas in the Cornell study, the effect was as great as .72%. In either case, the effect is significant: .58% of a $500,000 home is $2,900

Unlike Redfin, Professor Thomas excluded transactions from his consideration with an asking price ending in $-999, as this price invites a specific, already well-studied consumer reaction. Professor Thomas also studied houses and condos together, whereas Redfin published separate numbers for each. Neither Redfin nor Professor Thomas evaluated Kevin Boer’s excellent suggestion for Pacific Rim sellers, of ending a price in 8s to appeal to superstitious Chinese buyers.

We’ll add Professor Thomas’s research — and perhaps our own, too — to our summary of practical, data-driven advice for home-sellers. Thanks to a Friend of Redfin for bringing this new research to our attention, and also for submitting our bonus link for today.

December 17, 2007

Eyewitness “Today” Account + Twelve Live TV Tips

Thanks to everyone for their kind words about Redfin’s appearance on “Today,” which broadcast on Friday our data-driven guidance on how to sell a home more quickly, for a higher price. We showed up in the local papers and the blogs. Another food-fight broke out with the real estate bloggers. But mostly people have asked what it was like to be on the show. Here is our starstruck eyewitness account…

The segment was scheduled to run at 7:40, and the producer asked me to arrive by 6:50. Outside the Today studio it was festive: there was a gigantic Christmas tree, and traces of snow still on the ground, and a crowd of tourists, and a security guard manning a velvet rope. It was windy and cold. Inside there was another security guard, and — what a thrill! — another velvet rope.

The green room was just around the corner. The carpets were comfortable and worn. I was alone with two production assistants who were surfing the web on an ancient computer and watching the show; the food was plentiful: doughnut holes, egg sandwiches, cookies, bagels, granola bars, a plastic bowl of cut fruit. The place was crammed full of newspapers and televisions, all tuned to NBC. “Mind if we see what else is on?” I asked. They shook their heads.

A contingent of cooks showed up with a truck-sized slab of beef that they were going to prepare on the air. Since it was so early, I asked the PAs if they ate the food from the cooking segments and they said, “Oh yeah.”

The mood was unruffled. Brian Boitano was in the building, and somebody said, “It’s Brian Boitano.” Julia Roberts appeared just after Redfin, but her segment was taped the day before. Unlike “60 Minutes,” which was as highly charged and carefully wrought behind the scenes as it was on camera, “Today” is sunny, relaxed and fast-paced. It is after all on for four hours a day, almost every day. All the make-up people and production assistants are very encouraging, almost like amusement park attendants.

Heading up the stairs to the make-up room, I walked through a door and literally ran into Matt Lauer. “Hi guys!” he said. “Do I really need make-up?” I asked and the make-up people nodded with religious conviction. I asked them about their favorite stars to work on and they told me “the stars bring their own make-up people.”

The producer called to say I would do great. I think I sounded nervous, which made him sound very nervous. We ended up reassuring one another. I wanted to ask if I could use the word “kick-ass” on the air, for reasons I can no longer remember, but then told him “forget it,” and he said “what?” and I said, “no, forget it,” and then he said “Just don’t get nervous.”

At that very moment I was thinking of a Post headline I saw on my last visit here, when the Mets choked in a pennant-race (”PAGING DR. HEIMLICH”), and the one from the day before, when Mike Huckabee had to apologize to Mitt Romney (”I HUCKED UP.”) A PA escorted me onto the set five minutes before the segment started. I shook hands briefly with Meredith Viera, and with 90 seconds to go, I was wired for sound.

While I sat in the bar-stool, Meredith Vieira’s executive producer kept making jokes in her earpiece that caused her to say “You’re terrible.” And “stop.” She turned to me and said “He’s just being mean,” though of course I had no idea what the executive producer was saying. She sized me up and then said, “Can I preview the out?”– the segue to the next segment which the anchors memorize in case at any moment they have to end the current segment.

I tried to remember the advice I got the day before from a friend of a friend, waiting on the outdoor platform for a train in an ice-storm, clutching a cell phone with a frozen, agonized claw (”How much time do you have?” he asked. “12 hours.” “Oh my God. And what’s all that noise in the background?” “It’s me, freezing to death.” “Ok, the first thing to remember is to sound happy — you don’t sound too happy right now, ha ha!”). Here was the advice we got from him, and an Omaha pediatrician with TV experience, both of whom were enormously helpful:

1. Enthusiasm, passion, conviction: The most important qualities
2. Always answer three questions: So what? Who cares? What’s in it for me (that is, the viewer)?
3. Assume the viewer is channel surfing and didn’t hear the question.
4. Look at the interviewer; let the camera-people worry about the angle in which to shoot your face.
5. It isn’t uncommon for the questions to change the night before the show.
6. Don’t lean back in the chair; scoot forward, as this naturally tends to improve your posture.
7. Tuck arms close to sides, as this also tends to improve posture, but don’t have your arms too close to your sides.
8. Talk with your hands if that’s how you’re comfortable.
9. Avoid correcting the anchor; validate the questions.
10. If you want to circle back to an answer, you can say, “Like we were talking about earlier…”
11. The interviewer usually chooses you because he or she is most interested in your area; assume she is interested in what you have to say.
12. It’s probably best to avoid wearing white or patterns of a finer weave than a centimeter. Wearing a blazer gives depth (”I left my blazer at home.” “OK then, wearing a blazer makes you look stuck up. Ha ha!”)

On the set, Vieira was very relaxed and amazingly good at scrolling ahead through the teleprompter script just before the segment started and then never really looking at it again. She was also friendly, which calmed me down. Then she kicked off the segment by saying that I was here to explain how everything a Realtor tells you may be wrong. I knew that somewhere at that very moment, a blood-thirsty mob of real estate agents was forming.

The rest of the interview, I was worried about what they would think. But then before I knew it we were done. The producer showed up and said we did great, not entirely convincingly. Swinging by the control room — eerily dark but for the light of forty television monitors — I saw on one monitor that Vieira was already doing aerobics with her next guest.

I met a children’s book author from Palm Beach when I went to pick up my laptop from the green room, and someone in the crowd outside cheered when I came outside. I checked my phone and saw nine text messages from Redfin’s well-wishers. And I felt very grateful to Today’s producers, and lucky to have such a wonderful team, and to work at such a great company.

My mom called to say I was “very informative. But why can’t you sit up straight?”

December 13, 2007

The Real Estate Scientist

Redfin is launching tonight The Real Estate Scientist, an initiative to use empirical techniques to improve the way our agents and clients buy and sell homes. We’re releasing our first report, which provides seven recommendations for home-sellers, and training our agents on the findings, which should allow us to have more informed conversations with our clients.

We developed this research because the housing downturn has made it harder to sell our clients’ homes. This in turn has made us more introspective about how we can use our special powers – our computer science background and our consumer commitment – to be the best brokerage, not just the best real estate website.

This has been a contentious process. At lunch we argue over the practical questions we have to address for our clients, like the best day to debut a listing or whether it’s really worthwhile to post an MLS property on craigslist. But why argue when you can experiment?

There are plenty of excellent academic studies of local real estate markets. And Redfin has data that most academics don’t: access to 17 MLSs with more than 250,000 listings, and a website used by hundreds of thousands of buyers every month.

We’ve tried to put this information to good use. We know that listings that debuted on Friday rather than Thursday drew 7.7% more visitors; that a vacant home increased the odds of a price reduction by 9.5%; that, because of how real estate websites filter on price, a listing priced at $351,001 got as much as 7.1% less traffic than one priced a dollar lower. A team of agents, engineers, statisticians and writers worked together to produce the report. Some of their findings are surprising, while others confirm conventional wisdom, which has value too.

We only worry that the name we’ve given this initiative, “The Real Estate Scientist,” will open us to being mocked. And too, we hesitated to give consumers simple answers due to the complexity of the underlying data. But in the end we chose the name because it was the one we had used all along, it was fun, and it was the simplest way to explain how our approach was different. We strove for conclusive answers because we have houses to sell every week, and customers who need straightforward guidance.

Consumers who have read early drafts of the report overwhelmingly found our recommendations useful and effective. The industry reaction will likely be different. Some will argue that the report substantiates already well-understood tactics, while others will take the exact opposite position, refuting our points one by one.

But the truth is that a discussion of how real estate brokerages can deliver better results, based on data rather than just opinion, is in everyone’s best interests. And the findings aren’t simply a prescription for how we’ll serve our customers, but the starting point for an informed conversation about pricing and marketing our listings. Hopefully you can contribute to this conversation too, suggesting future avenues for research.

And now we are going to be talking about the findings on “Today,” probably around 7:40 Friday morning. What fun! To get ready for the interview I got my first $50-haircut, by a young Albanian in midtown Manhattan who compared my current style to 1989 Depeche Mode, and suggested I try a different color. “Like blonde?” I said, intrigued. “Just not so gray,” she mumbled. Because I had 30 minutes before running for a train, she cut quickly, putting off a very stylish socialite who was demanding that her hair be wrapped for the ice storm.

And then it was exhilarating to run – really run – through the streets as the year’s first flakes fell and pedestrians looked up gratefully into the sky. On the sidewalks at nearly every corner, there was one guy pushing a salt spreader and, this being New York, another to stand there and tell him what to do.

I had a meeting in the coffee shop of a remote, pretty Connecticut town, covered in silence and snow. Now on the train back, a teenager next to me is reading an article entitled “Sex Snafus That Can Send You to the ER”; a culinary school student who cried after being short on the fare has asked if we could stay together through the connection; and a bald salesman has been eavesdropping on my cell phone conversations.

“You can’t live in fear,” he says, repeating what I just said when I hung up on my last call. Then he adds: “Guys like us, we’re not afraid.” I nod, thinking about the next day’s show. If only that were true!

October 6, 2007

$549,999 is A Better Price for Your Home Than $550,001 (5% Better)

With more than 70% of home-buyers looking on the Web for real estate to buy, we wondered if it made sense when pricing a house to take into account the parameters used on most real estate search sites. For example, since every site lets folks filter on price in increments of $25,000 at lower price ranges and increments of $50,000 at higher price ranges, wouldn’t a property priced at $549,999 get seen by more Web shoppers than one priced at $550,001?

The answer is maybe, just a little.

How so? Enter Mose Andre, Redfin’s ace statistician, who analyzed the logs of the Redfin site to determine how often Seattle users of our site see properties in different price ranges, between September 10, 2007 and September 24, 2007. His findings:

• About 30% of searches don’t even filter on price. But the number of searches that don’t filter on price is exaggerated on Redfin’s site because Redfin.com price filters aren’t easy for users to find.
• For most neighborhoods, the maximum percentage of Redfin searches you are likely to lose by moving from one price band to the next is 6.5% . For most Seattle neighborhoods, this band occurs for homes costing more than $550,000.

Based on these findings, we would only recommend taking into account how search sites filter on price in cases where a property is priced very near one of the popular threshold amounts. In other words, if you were going to price a house at $570,000, you shouldn’t price at $549,000 just to have it show up in 6.5% more price-filtered searches; but we would consider it if you you were going to price a house at $551,000.

You can see how this plays out on Mose’s graph of search exposure and listing count for Bridle Trails:

The red line represents the percentage of Redfin’s Bridle Trails searches filtering on price that include Bridle Trails properties at different price points; use the numbers on the left axis to measure the percentage of searches that return a result at the prices appearing along the bottom axis. As you can see, less than 20% of Redfin’s Bridle Trails searches filtering on price include properties costing more than $800,000.

The black line represents the density of listings in the area; more precisely it is a curve fitted to the shape of a histogram representing the number of listings at different prices. You can use the numbers at right to track the number of listings at different price ranges. The most common price is the one where demand becomes scarce: $800,000.

The biggest drop in buyer exposure in Bridle Trails occurs at $550,000. One reason drops tend to occur at this point is that Redfin, like many other real estate search sites, only allows price filtering at $50,000 increments for prices greater than $500,000. So the first $50,000 steps are doozies.

Let’s look at a few more graphs, this one of Capitol Hill:

Here most of the inventory is clustered at a price just below $400,000, probably because there is a glut of condominiums on the market, and most of the price-filtered searches are in that range. There is a little hump around $700,000 for houses and townhouses in the neighborhood.

One more graph, this time for stuffy, old Queen Anne…

And here is a table of the price-points where the biggest drop in search activity occurs, and how large that drop is:

If you want to see how demand compares to inventory for your neighborhood, download a package of all our graphs for the Seattle area. If you want these graphs for another market like San Francisco or Boston, just let us know. Thanks to Mose Andre for the stats and analysis; if there are other analyses you’d like to see us perform, just leave a comment for that too.

Update: Mose cranked out some San Francisco graphs.

June 7, 2007

First Freakonomics, Then the Redfin Advantage, Now An Academic Study Spanning Six Years

Last February, when the rain wouldn’t stop and we were bored out of our minds, Redfin released a year of sales records indicating that our buyers on average got a better deal than customers of other brokerages, on top of the commission savings.

Mose Andre, Redfin’s compulsive stats man, has only recently recovered. Hundreds of bloggers, commenters, e-mailers and callers raged against the idea that Redfin customers got a better deal, or that our agents had any part in our customers’ success. But the data held up.

In childish, tearful rants, I defended our agents. Our CTO, Michael Young, poked his head into my office to ask, “Who cares why our customers win, if they win?” And then shrugged (he has a two year-old). Mose nearly had a nervous breakdown calculating and re-calculating the numbers, then slept for two days straight.

But ever the kinky masochist, last week Mose called me out in the hallway to ask why we hadn’t tallied up the Redfin Advantage for our listing customers.

“Too hard,” I said, turning around. “We could intentionally set a low price than claim a big mark-up. What’s the right number to compare ourselves against?”
“The assessed value,” Mose said. “The Zestimate.”
“People would question those numbers, too,” I said.
“It doesn’t even matter if the baseline number is wrong,” Mose said. “As long as it’s consistently wrong for everybody.” He was now surrounded by his math nerds, and I was all alone.
“Try explaining that in a blog post,” I said.
“Just because it’s hard to explain doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing,” Mose said.
I started to back away. Mose smiled and said he would come back from vacation with a new way to figure out how our listing customers really did.

Well, it turns out that somebody beat him to it (hopefully Mose will realize he should never go on vacation again). A Northwestern economics professor bet his colleague that a traditional listing agent increases the price of a home, and then spent the next three years analyzing Madison, Wisconsin data from 1998 - 2004 to prove his point. Today, that professor is taking his colleague to lunch, because he was wrong. The traditional agent often doesn’t get a higher price, and consumers know what their home is worth better than anyone in traditional real estate has admitted.

According to a review of the study published in this morning’s New York Times, people in Madison, Wisconsin “who sold their homes through real estate agents typically did not get a higher sale price than people who sold their homes themselves.” In fact, the study found, the agent-sold homes actually sold for slightly less (the difference though was within the study’s margin of error).

The study pointed out one bright side for the traditional industry, reporting that Realtor-listed properties sold more quickly (105 days vs 125 days), but we’re not sure this is such a simple advantage. According to another study by Freakonomics professor Steven Levitt, when Realtors list their own properties, the properties are on the market longer because the Realtor is holding out for a better price. Perhaps Madison home-owners took the same approach.

The Northwestern study worked because Madison is a kind real estate of Neverland, where more than 10% of all the homes for sale are available on a single For-Sale-By-Owner — FSBO — site, FSBOMadison.com, which still allowed owners to offer the buyer’s agent a commission. So the data set of FSBO sales in Madison was large enough that the professors could correct for all sorts of skewing factors, like lot size, neighborhood and time of year — and compare it to Realtor-listed sales.

Everywhere else in America, FSBO marketshare has declined (14% to 12% from 2002 to 2006, scattered across many sites) at the same rate as traditional brokerages (74% to 70%), with alternative brokerages like Redfin taking up the slack. One reason for the decline is that through services like Redfin Direct and many others, consumers can now list their home in the MLS without paying their listing agent a traditional commission.

Which brings us to the final twist: we feel kind of weird promoting a FSBO study. It drives us crazy when traditional agents claim we’re a FSBO type of service. Redfin agents work with clients to price and promote their homes, to negotiate a deal and to handle all the paperwork associated with the sale. So it cheered us to see one of the study’s authors, Aviv Nevo, acknowledge that you do of course want to pay a listing agent for the work he does, so long as you don’t give him a piece of the action based instead on the value of your house. Which is how we’ve paid Redfin agents all along.

March 24, 2007

Pricing Advice: Make the Last 3 Digits -500

There are very few people with Matt Bell’s zeal for negotiating. He is 6′5”, with a large, slow smile that seems to bespeak an unused capacity for terrific violence, and he is faultlessly congenial. The best way to summarize our friendship is to say that he taught me to shotgun a beer for the first time at the age of 34. I wasn’t very good at it.

Working together at Plumtree, we once took an elevator to the penthouse floor of a massive bank’s headquarters to ask for a $4 million deal. We rode in silence, hands in our pockets for the first 40 floors. When the elevator was about to ding, I opened my mouth to say, “I hate asking for money.” Before I could, Matt said, “Let’s make it $5 million.”

It turned out to be the largest deal in Plumtree’s history, triumphantly negotiated by the bank back to $4 million, and it helped Matt buy the house that he just sold through Redfin. While he was still haggling last week over the cost of roof repairs, we went to lunch, and Matt began speculating on the list price most likely to result in the highest offer. It is the kind of conversation that makes me wonder if my friend is from another planet.

“Does a price that ends in -000, like $490,000 seem casual? Is $499,999 too blue-light special?” I stared into my salad. Little did I know that Redfin’s mad scientist, Mose Andre, was working on that very problem, crunching statistics on the data-set we pulled to calculate the Redfin Advantage.

To do the analysis, Mose took all the houses that sold in King County, Washington last year and grouped them by the last three digits of their list price. For example, one group would consist of all the houses whose list price ended with “-500,” like $499,500, $387,500, $831,500, and $1,230,500. The four most popular endings for list prices of houses in 2006 were “-000,” “-500,” “-900,” and “-950.” Less than 7% of properties were listed at prices that did not end in those four numbers.

Then we threw out new construction, which tends to sell at list price even if other incentives are involved; we also threw out some records where we couldn’t easily tell if it was new construction or not.

And then for each group we calculated the ratio of list price to final price. And it turns out that certain list prices did in fact tend to result in a higher premium over the list price.

The ending that resulted in the highest final price as compared to list turned out to be “-500,” as in $499,500 or $530,500. And the difference was significant: listing for $500 less than an -000 ending seemed to result in a final price that was $3,000 more.

Maybe rounding a list price to a nice, even “-000″ is like putting a big “negotiate me” sticker on a house’s back. Or, as Matt speculated, “A -500 ending sounds like you really thought about it, but it’s not a nickel-and-diming gimmick like -999.”

The column labeled “$ Over -000 Price” compares the final/list ratio for each ending using the -000 final/list ratio as a baseline since it was the lowest; we came up with a dollar difference by using a hypothetical final price of $600,000. The data for condos is also interesting, although there was only one price ending besides -000 that was popular enough to report on, -950. As you might have guessed, it was better than a price ending in -000:

The “$ Over -000 Ending” was calculated using the “-000″ final/list as a baseline, just as before, but assuming a $400,000 average price for condominiums.

Even though it makes me feel like a mutual fund to say it, Mose wants everyone to know that these numbers reflect what happened in 2006, not necessarily what will happen in 2007. Had we world enough and time, as well as more data, he says we would compare listing prices in which the first three digits were constant, and the last three varied. Mose is still a little traumatized by all the trouble our last report on MLS data created, which wasn’t even his fault… but he signed off his e-mail to me tonight by asking “why is this stuff so fun?”