Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Survey: Selling or renting a property

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Survey: Selling or renting a property

The newspaper carried the story about a property agent being sued by the seller for giving bad advice to sell a property at below the market value. The property was sold to the buyer (who was a friend of the agent) who then re-sold the property at a big profit.

The court decided in favour of the plaintiff and required the property agent to compensate the original owner for the loss.

What is your view on this matter? Survey.

Here are the survey results.

Before you buy, sell or rent a property, invest $25 in a property report. Here is a sample report.

If you are interested in this introductory offer, complete this form.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...: You can put insurance agents and property agents and they will live happily ever thereafter.
Both supposed to give advice but they don't . They push, mislead and hide facts and con their customers into buying.
It is time that the company they represent should bear the responsibility. It should be top down. Whatever advice they give to clients they are liable. No such thing as caveat emptor.; February 13, 2009 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; February 13, 2009 9:50 PM
Falcon said...: Wow, Mr Tan, this is an awesome report. Well done, so much useful information for such a low price. I particularly liked the page on the possible sale price which will give a clear benchmark to both sellers and buyers and put a stop to those monkey business by unscrupulous agents.
You certainly lived up to the maxim of not "cursing the darkness but providing light to get rid of darkness."
Well Done. This is another example of why we need more people like Mr. Tan in Singapore. He will make a good president for the Republic of Singapore.; February 14, 2009 1:52 PM
Mr. White said...: This report is interesting. We used to pay between $160 to $200 for a valuation report for a valuation company, but they were usually a conveyor belt type. Very surprised at the quality of this report. Ironical that a valuer's report is not as good as this one, and this one is cheaper.

On the topic of the ERA agents, this is really a sign of the time, where capitalism and profit are the motivators. I look forward to a new world order (The president of USA and prime ministers of Australia are calling for such) where responsibility and not just profit would be the goals of businesses.

This really has got to come from top down. Hope springs eternal.; February 14, 2009 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Im glad the plaintiff won the case. this is clearly the case where the agent did not act as a fiduciary to the his principle.; February 14, 2009 9:52 PM
Concerned said...: The judge delivered a very honest and good judgement. Hope this will deter any agent from trying to take advantage of the not so informed in any future transactions.; February 14, 2009 10:48 PM
Anonymous said...: The judge's verdict and admonition should also be a message to the insurance agents. Like the property agents , the insurance agents owe a duty to their customers for the best solution to their needs and certainly NOT diluted solution.
I hope policyholders will soon be able to find out what their agents had sold to them.
FISCA will provide a review service for consumers who want to know whether their agents have miss-sold or misrepresented to them
or short changed them with products that don't meet their needs or did not conduct need analysis or have violated section 27 of the FAA.; February 15, 2009 1:58 PM
Unknown said...: The fact that ERA sued the sellers is disturbing. Now they want to appeal? I hope the judge would give them a very good lecture. They have not learned anything from the previous judge's lecture.; February 16, 2009 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Hope someone will sue the insurance agent and set a precedent.; February 17, 2009 10:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Nowadays, you can't trust any salesmen, from RMs, property and insurance agents to pot salesmen. They are greedy , unethical, liars and dishonest.
You can see all complaints are against the salesmen.; February 18, 2009 11:09 AM
Anonymous said...: The parties involved know if there is an intent to cheat. If there is, then they should be severely punished.

Jasmin; February 19, 2009 7:35 AM
Anonymous said...: It's the agent-principal problem at work (don't you just love economic theories): at some point in time, both will have conflicting interests.

In this instance, the owner assumes the property agent will represent his interests and get the best price (read: as much as possible), but for the property agent, it's about selling the property in the shortest time possible, at a price that would "move", and therefore putting his interests before that of the owner.

While I'm glad for the homeowner for claiming damages, I'm sorry to say the homeowner should also do his homework-- selling a property right now, in this market, how good a price can you fetch?

A 'market price' is not something cast in stone-- it's simply a mean of all the possible transactions, meaning to say it can be manipulated if you have outliers (the 'spoil market' prices).

In any investment, there is always a risk, be it real estate or securities or even bonds. If you're not prepared for losses, then you'd do better to hoard your money under your pillow, but even then, you'd lose out because of inflation.

Another point: property agents are just sales people. We may look to them as experts, but the typical housing agent doesn't do market analysis or risk evaluations-- try asking the next property agent you come across to talk to you about risk in the property market, and you'll probably get a sales pitch instead (in other words, "sell ko yok"); February 19, 2009 3:01 PM