Better Seattle

This post was inspired by Colleen Kulikowski's blog post:  http://activerain.com/blogsview/18266/Congratulations-Carol-Williams 

Buyers often compare buying to renting as if the two were different sides of the same coin. But buying is a very different proposition than renting, and the benefits and drawbacks can not be contrasted with renting, as if one was making a decision over which of two luxury cars to purchase. 

For Buyers on the fence, I have my own theory....  I don't think a client who wishes to own a home would postpone a purchase simply for market concerns. In fact, if the client is holding off, my thought is that they are viewing a home purchase as an investment and not simply for their desire to own a home. The idea of buying a house for investment purposes is a fairly new idea. Maybe only 50 years ago people viewed the land purchase as an investment but the house itself more as a personal need and/or indulgence. The benefits intrinsic to owning can not be taken away even if the market tanks for a bit.

What the recent several years boom in real estate has shown us is that people who did not feel the motivation to buy a property for intrinsic ownership reasons can be motivated to buy for investment reasons. These buyers are a different type of buyer than those who simply, in and of itself, wish to own a home. 

For example, take the idea of an American Kennel Certified purebred dog. Some buyers will buy a champion's puppy simply because they like the lines of the dog, and they wish to enjoy the experience of having their own dog with such a fine temperment, etc. Then there are those (such as dog trainers/competitors) who simply buy AKC champion puppies for the purpose of raising, training, and competing with them, for the intention of turning around and breeding and selling its puppies. The second buyer purchases the pup for financial gains, whereas the first buyer could care less if the total "monetary worth" of their dog lowers in correlation to the dog's age.

In a down or holding market, "on the fence" buyers are not qualified buyers. There could be a variety of motivations that could bring them to adopting the latter view of valuing home ownership for its intrinsic value, such as marriage or a pregnancy, or achieving a certain level of security in their work (for example, for a professor, this would be tenure).

Importantly, don't feel like a lemon for not knowing how to persuade an investment-minded buyer to buy. The means for bringing them to that point are, more often than not, not in your control. I would touch base with such buyers off and on and keep them informed of market progress, without stressing too much or internalizing it to believe it is a reflection of my ability as an agent.

    Opening November's issue of Riviera, a south Orange County magazine catering to the luxury lifestyle, I read in an article chronicling area events the following excerpt: 

       "We go to so many [parties] that by now we really know what we like when we throw one of our own: Lovely interesting and attractive guests, of course, food and plenty of it, music, fab fashion on gorgeous models, and here's a biggie: no waiting in line for a drink!"

Something about this definition seems lacking. I had at one point in my life categorized a meaningful party as this. Who doesn't like beautiful people, good food, good drink? But was this all?

Sometimes I wonder if we as real estate agents conduct business like this. We are quick to encourage our clients to a bigger house, a ritzier area, and even repeated upgrades. As agents, client business benefits us. The higher price increases our bottom line. We become a cog in the machine, and promote a lifestyle with which we even feel dissonance.  We come to believe that it is for our client's best interest that they buy as much as they can afford, and have even betrayed ourselves into believing our own life can be given meaning in the same manner.

Is the definition above that of the authentic life? Can it be boiled down to mere material situation?

I have been fortunate in my transactions as a real estate agent. I have always genuinely enjoyed the clients I've worked with. I am not certain if this is because of how they respond to me, or that simply I repel those clients who might be a little less appreciative. Out of the whole batch, however, my heart has been broken to see how often people think that if they could only afford another 100k for their new home, they would be happy. If it doesn't happen financially (loan limitations, etc), they become discontent with even the many beautiful homes at which they can comfortably afford to live.

Is worthwhile living tied to the market price of own's home? Is "wealth" equivalent to "happiness"? Are real estate agents solicitors of this myth?

What should the role of a real estate agent be in people's lives? For a brief period of time spanning only a handful of months, agents find themselves poised in a position of influence in client's lives. How can we as agents add true meaning through our work and not merely promote a system of "Who dies with the most toys wins"?