x

Richard Rawlings

Founder

5716 Profile Views

About Me

https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-rawlings-8a38179

my expertise in the industry

Estate Agency Trainer, Content Writer, and motivational coach.

Richard's Recent Activity

Why not have SDLT paid by the seller? For the following reasons: 1. The seller has usually made a considerable capital gain, which is otherwise tax free. 2. The seller is more likely to be able to afford it than the buyer. 3. The buyer would have a higher deposit and therefore qualify for better mortgage deals and have a greater choice of homes to buy, or: 4. The buyer would require a smaller mortgage, making home ownership slightly more affordable. What's the downside? (Apart from the fact that the seller would have higher apparent costs, which might put pressure on agency fees, unless deflected well by the agent). No matter who pays the SDLT, it all comes out of the same pot eventually! But it would seem more equitable for this to come from the seller.

From: Richard Rawlings 13 January 2021 10:46 AM

I agree - this really is blowing up something out of nothing. It was clearly a human entry error (eg hasty cut'n'paste). Does anyone really think that an agent expects to gain anything by suggesting a tiled floor when it is not tiled? The main issue here is either the complainant was a (very sad) individual who thought it worthy of ASA, or, more likely, an even sadder competitor trying to get Move into trouble. If the latter, then it is a case of an agent pulling his/her own industry down. I know Move and they are a fine agency, well-deserving of their many awards. We all make mistakes and they immediately rectified theirs. There by the grace of God goes every one of us I suspect. Note to editor: please file in the "fake news" folder!

From: Richard Rawlings 16 December 2020 10:20 AM

Sounds like a great insurance opportunity here, given the worry that movers would experience if they hear of stories like this. But the insurers would also no doubt include a clause excluding liability in the event of whatever it was that caused the loan withdrawal in the first place! But how about insurance for anyone else in the chain innocently affected perhaps?

From: Richard Rawlings 03 December 2020 09:43 AM

From: Richard Rawlings 16 November 2020 15:33 PM

or the fee he charges when quoting his service! (or her of course). Surely we should have the right to at least pitch for the business before revealing our fee. Otherwise it subliminally forces the consumer to focus on fee, not the service, style or personality of the agent.

From: Richard Rawlings 16 November 2020 15:32 PM

"Dictated by the VENDOR's ability to negotiate"??? Surely they pay US to be better negotiators than them! This really is cart before horse and probably only applies to agencies that have failed to train their agents accordingly! :)

From: Richard Rawlings 16 November 2020 15:29 PM

I worry that estate agency may be on a slippery slope towards a fee environment whereby fees have to be clarified even before meeting the client. This would seriously undermine the essence of how and why people choose one agency over another. Research, along with most agents’ experience, continues to confirm that the singular most important influence on a seller’s decision is not as objective as regulators might hope. It is simply that the seller “prefers the individual”, closely followed by recommendations and good reviews. In a business where we are often called to be counsellors and mediators as much as salespeople, it is essential that the public should not be persuaded to consider the fee ahead of agents’ ability to deliver a smooth and enjoyable experience - where softer skills are often held in as high regard to performance stats. It is the partial intangibility of a good agency that enables some agents to shine and charge a healthy 2%-3% commission, which their clients are more than happy to pay. Surely this is true competition as it widens the playing field with a massive range of agency styles and personalities, where character is highly prized by those prepared to pay it. It also allows cheap agents to operate as well, ensuring healthy competition that credits the consumer with enough intelligence to decide which agency they prefer, on their terms. Have a great day.

From: Richard Rawlings 16 November 2020 08:12 AM

All I can say is, when Michael Bruce showed me the presentation himself, my jaw dropped, the juices started flowing and I realised that agents and the public alike are in for a real treat with Boomin, which takes the whole concept of "portal" (and it's much more than that) to an extraordinary level. This is very much a space to watch in the coming weeks and months.

From: Richard Rawlings 25 September 2020 08:45 AM

This high level approach is innovative but will not be of interest to most agents who swim in a different pond. However, Buyer Representation, when correctly integrated into regular agency, is one of the greatest opportunities to add a whole new revenue stream to an agency, with no extra resources required. Most agents misunderstand what modern buyer representation can mean - it’s easier, cheaper and quicker to generate buyer instructions than regular instructions and the fees are about the same. A real no-brainier frankly that will no doubt attract naysayers to this thread who don’t get it!

From: Richard Rawlings 11 September 2020 08:58 AM

Having spent the past 20 years researching fee techniques and specialising in helping British estate agents increase their otherwise pathetic commission percentage, I do have some observations here! Firstly, I’m not sure that the percentages quoted for some of these countries is anywhere near correct. Having trained agents in both Australia and France, I can tell you that you’d struggle to find an agent charging as much as 5.7% in Australia – the average is usually 2%-3% (as professor Google will confirm). Likewise, you’d be very lucky to find an agent charging as little as 3.9% in France – where up to 10% is the norm (possibly the poorest value in the world – they are always at lunch!) However, that aside, the issue is not how much relative fees are in monetary terms, but the value an estate agents brings to the sale. In South Africa, where I consistently charged 7% for several years, once the sale is agreed, the agents’ fees are due, as they are in the USA (6%). No linked transactions, no liaising with solicitors or surveyors, not gazumping/gazundering, etc. Arguably poor value compared with the hassles we have to deal with in the UK to hold a sale together. We do an incredible amount here, but most importantly, it’s our ability to negotiate a better deal than the seller could have done themselves, as well as all the onward sales progression that easily justifies a higher fee. If we can’t secure 5%-10% more than the seller then we are not worth our fee, which frankly should be at least 2% as it is for many of those agents who have attended my fee-raising seminars over the years. And by the way, now is the perfect time to increase yours too! Have a great day!

From: Richard Rawlings 26 August 2020 11:34 AM

And there is NEVER a conflict of interest!

From: Richard Rawlings 11 August 2020 08:39 AM

Buyer representation is the biggest untapped opportunity in British estate agency. There is a lot more to it than meets the eye and it is at its best when properly integrated within regular estate agency. Happy to have a chat about this if you need a hand. Have a great day.

From: Richard Rawlings 11 August 2020 08:38 AM

Charming and fabulous idea on so many levels. I bet they get masses of views because they have "gameified" it! Possibly unwitting, due to the considerate and fun approach by the photographer, but a brilliant PR stunt nevertheless.

From: Richard Rawlings 31 May 2019 11:14 AM

Excellent article Charlie. Agents have in the past shot themselves in the foot by not making the connection here. They understandably focus on generating new stock and have not always seen a tenant, or even a buyer for that matter, as contributing to this. (Sure, today's buyer is tomorrow's seller, but "I want business now!"). The issue, and opportunity today, is that even though these tenants may become future buyers and then sellers, it is the contribution they make TODAY, in terms of their online reviews reflecting the way they are treated and respected, that massively impacts the management of your immediate reputation. Ignore at your peril! Have a great day!

From: Richard Rawlings 02 May 2019 09:58 AM

Nice article Nat. As social media video replaces TV ads, it's cheaper than ever for creative agents to deliver stunning ad campaigns. Think big, have fun, become memorable and risk offending a few people along the way! have a great day.

From: Richard Rawlings 08 April 2019 11:38 AM

Spot on! Yet many agents still find it hard to accept that is is more important to promote your business than it is to promote any of the properties you are selling. Some still advertise properties to attract buyers and tenants in the belief that, by showcasing their stock, this in itself will attract other sellers and landlords. Despite the powerful effect of social proof here, the benefit of this is diminishing. Agents who are weak in crafting and communicating meaningful and engaging key messages stand to lose the most. Those combine these skills with systematic prospecting tend to gain market share. Have a great day!

From: Richard Rawlings 27 March 2019 08:51 AM

Sales that have exchanged don't fall through because exchange defines a day of commitment on both sides. The main reason why sales fall through is because there is a wide window of opportunity for people to change their mind. We are the only country in the world as far as I know that does not require commitment on offer, although many of the sales I have agreed in the past 30 years have involved some form of binding offer/acceptance, so my fall-through rate was negligible. It's also worth getting your sellers to sort their legals out at time of instruction. My understanding is that Gazeal covers all these bases - pretty slick.

From: Richard Rawlings 21 March 2019 09:21 AM

Hmm - not sure if the headline precisely fits the issue Graham. Agents are more interested in turnover than house prices. In fact, falling house prices can be a sign that things are actually selling rather than stagnating - as they clearly are in some pockets of the UK. Government figures are notoriously out of date, and it might be more insightful to ask agents about activity right now. The feeling I'm getting from agents is mixed, but one branch I spoke to sold ten properties in a week and that is by no means an isolated example of surprising activity. Brexit is being used to justify poor performance in some instances, whilst other agents are milking a market that is bored by the subject and is getting on with their lives. Have a great day!

From: Richard Rawlings 21 March 2019 09:10 AM

About time - I was using these 20 years ago! One of the best instruction tools I know. Truly staggering that it has taken this long to be considered seriously. HIPS was on the right track, but agents have been slow to respond. Once you realise that our role as agents it to help people move, it all makes sense. Have a great day.

From: Richard Rawlings 04 March 2019 07:41 AM

Quite right Richard! I have negotiated dozens of deals using binding contracts and the work a treat. It's not complicated and if buyer and seller are prepared to commit on exchange, why should they not want to be bound on offer acceptance, subject to the usual caveats being satisfactory by exchange. This is commonplace in many other countries as you say. Have a great day.

From: Richard Rawlings 24 January 2019 10:44 AM

Last week I presented a Rightmove webinar about the Psychology of Persuasion in the context of Raising Fees. During the seminar we polled 1000 agents on their fee level 6% of agents polled charge between 2% and 3% 18% charge between 1.5% and 1.9% 61% charge between 1% and 1.4% 15% charge less than 1% Conclusion: About a quarter of all agents charge more than 1.5%. That’s 60% more than those who charge LESS than 1% In my view, for those who charge less than 1.5%, this has nothing to do with location or competition. It’s about skills, attitude, confidence and the deliberate commitment to charge a decent amount of commission in order to secure their future. This survey confirms what I have always said - people are prepared to pay for the product or service they prefer. Message to agents - be preferable and learn the skills to persuade. Have a great day.

From: Richard Rawlings 17 January 2019 12:04 PM

Good points Michael and I agree that contraction of supply and cheap money has upheld prices. I wonder if the BTL sector might actually divest itself of stock in view of a more challenging taxation regime as well as worries that their equity could also be eroded by potentially falling prices?

From: Richard Rawlings 27 November 2018 10:19 AM

Don't let this derail you! Wealthy Prime Central London buyers have a greater stake in the Brexit outcome/uncertainty, but most people are not in that league. During the last recession transaction volumes in most markets fell until it was only those genuine serious buyers and sellers who remained. It was a shock at the time but that situation has not changed much; there is not much further to fall in terms of volumes and most agents have adapted to this. Indeed, the Brexit issue has created an environment where sellers are likely to be more flexible on price, and the need for a good estate agent is becoming increasingly evident, and I see fees already beginning to rise. Brexit? What Brexit? - You've got a business to run! Have a great day.

From: Richard Rawlings 27 November 2018 09:34 AM

From: Richard Rawlings 08 October 2018 13:12 PM

FOXTONS SHOULD - BUT NOT YOU! The rent must be eye-wateringly expensive and during the good times, this was a stake in the ground for their London-wide audience. But now is not the time for such vanity. However, this does not apply to the vast majority of regular estate agents who I passionately believe should RETAIN their high street presence for six important reasons as explained in my article in EAT over the weekend. SEE WHY AT https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/features/2018/10/dont-be-hasty-in-ditching-your-high-street-office

From: Richard Rawlings 08 October 2018 12:51 PM

The best - the most sociable, knowledgeable and gregarious bloke you could meet. Good luck Whaley! You won't be missed because you won't be out of the game!

From: Richard Rawlings 06 July 2018 15:06 PM

Legal pack up front (helps you get the instruction), all required verifications and contract signatures on day one, title/search insurance, binding offer, and a lawyer who will pick up the phone should be able to knock weeks if not months off the process.

From: Richard Rawlings 14 May 2018 09:21 AM

Guys - don't let this scare you, unless of course you are an average agent who refuses to accept that this is a brilliant opportunity to pull away from the crowd. People WILL ALWAYS pay for a service they prefer. So be PREFERABLE! These are exciting times - you just have to look at your business through different glasses, understand the modern consumer, and give them something they will absolutely LOVE! Have a great day.

From: Richard Rawlings 14 May 2018 08:06 AM

Sales fall through because of the ridiculous delays specifically caused by old fashioned solicitors, and agents who don't have the guts to refuse to work with them. Also, if a buyer is prepared to commit on exchange, then why not on offer acceptance, like virtually everywhere else in the world? I have been using binding contracts for many years and they work a treat. Or take if further and use the Gazeal service - where deposits are held in Escrow. PS I won't be replying to the people I predict on this blog will have all sorts of reasons why you can't do binding contracts. You absolutely can. Good agents have a can-do attitude, they employ creative solutions, and their fall-through rate is usually less than 10% . Have a great day!

From: Richard Rawlings 14 May 2018 07:59 AM

Nice balanced piece James and I look forward to reading updates! R

From: Richard Rawlings 25 April 2018 09:40 AM

Once again Lloyds have got it humungously wrong. And as this is a site for Estate Agents Mr Tarry's suggestion that rising fees is "an issue" is totally misplaced. The issue is they are falling - just ask anyone in the business, apart from those who have the skill and good sense to defend their position on fees, which I would hope would be at least 2% . Without question we have the cheapest agency fees in the world (and I know, Mr Tarry - I train agents worldwide). I could go on for hours .....

From: Richard Rawlings 07 November 2016 16:30 PM

Outrageous that a bank (of all people) should make an issue out of agency fees without recognizing how well sellers are served by agents taking the stress off the move, facilitating the sale, sourcing and qualifying the right buyer and in most instances probably securing a much higher price for the seller, than had the seller sold without the agent’s involvement. In the US, where 5.3 million transactions happen annually, at an average of over 5%, the NAR reports that sellers are 16% better off using an agent than without. Why is there such a fixation over what is by far the lowest fee regime in the world, which delivers excellent value for money? The only reason fees have spiraled down over the years is weak agents unable to defend their position against undercutting competitors. The public has remained silent on the issue because agency fees in the UK are really not an issue. But here’s one way to help get your fees up – show a prospective seller the Lloyds article and offer to do it for 1.7% - just under the “official national average”! (Assuming you’re not already charging a healthy 2% of course). Have a great day!

From: Richard Rawlings 20 September 2016 06:54 AM

NONSENSE NONSENSE NONSENSE! Another sign of weak, poorly trained, agents who simply don't have the skills, professionalism or confidence to defend their position on fees and view fee cutting as the easiest line of defence - even though it seldom works as a market share generator. It's simply cowardice in the face of an (wrongly-)assumed enemy. The public does not have a problem with fees in the UK (which are by far the cheapest in the world) - it's all in the mind of the weak agent who wrongly believes that people prefer cheap! They don't - they pay for the product or service they prefer. All the agent has to do is be preferable - and persuasive. And that's a training issue.

From: Richard Rawlings 27 April 2016 07:09 AM

I work with thousands of estate agents, especially helping them to protect/raise their fees (in fact Mr Quirk attended one of my sessions and promptly raised his before going down the online model). The one thing they have in common is a passion for securing a figure at or even over the asking price - their reputation hangs on it! Yes of course the sale itself comes first but real people on the ground understanding their buyer and seller and helping both to discover their areas of compromise is massively beneficial. In fact a report by the National Association of Realtors in the USA states that sellers using an estate agent to sell their home typically secures 16% more money for it than if they sell it privately, which is effectively what online agency facilitates. Have a great day!

From: Richard Rawlings 21 March 2016 10:52 AM

Finally - an excellent initiative from an online agency! It's a classic example of a customer focused opportunity to excel that something only a handful of traditional agents have been doing offline -binding offer documents. It really isn't rocket science!

From: Richard Rawlings 26 November 2015 06:34 AM

Absolutely David- there are many factors very few of which we as agents can actually influence. But removing the one portal rule IS one of them. If anyone knows any others then it would be great if they could share it.

From: Richard Rawlings 02 November 2015 11:39 AM

Thanks Ken. I appreciate your words. The research suggests that 80% of buyers only use one portal! This will be especially true for those important speculative buyers who will only put their house on the market if they are satisfied they will be able to find something to move to. If they are mostly only looking on their favourite portal, whichever that might be, but listings are less frequently duplicated than before, then by default they will not have been exposed to as much stock as pre-OTM. Of course, serious buyers (the remaining 20% of the market??) will leave no stone unturned. You have however raised an important point that a good agent will actually help buyers discover areas of compromise by offering them properties that they might never have discovered if left to their own devices. And that's the real value of a good agent!

From: Richard Rawlings 02 November 2015 10:03 AM

Actually, Smile Please, I am passionately in favour of agents gaining local instructions - I agree that's what the business is all about and that's what I've spent the past 20 years helping agents do. Of course people are panic buying because of the flawed view that there is not much available. And if they can't find anywhere to buy, they won't list their own property, hence falling instruction rates and a vicious cycle kicks in. And by the way, if you think that online agents are the disruptors, they really aren't - they are just cheap agents helping people sell privately. Not a threat. Get over it! Haven't you spotted the real opportunity yet?!

From: Richard Rawlings 31 October 2015 15:18 PM

Smile Please - I thought it sounded odd to partly "blame" a portal as well, until I saw the research conducted by a highly qualified statistician. However, transaction volumes have "only " fallen by 8%. Is it inconceivable that the one other portal rule could not have caused an 8% wobble? Please don't get me wrong - I am not suggesting that people not using OTM is the issue - it's not. In fact OTM visitor numbers reported at between 2% and 5% of the market are negligible. Listing migration is not! The point is that buyers (especially those important speculative ones) who used to assume that they could access most properties using EITHER Rightmove OR Zoopla, now have to use BOTH - even without visiting OTM. But they don't! They still think one major portal is enough and that's why they believe there is nothing on the market as fewer properties are duplicated over both major portals. As an industry we have collectively failed the consumer by diluting their easy access to property for sale.

From: Richard Rawlings 31 October 2015 11:02 AM

Great idea guys; innovative, transparent and customer focused. Not sure if 1.5% is perhaps a bit on the low side - if you really are delivering exceptional service then the top end fee, say 2%, should match this. But that's just me - well done anyway! Richard

From: Richard Rawlings 18 August 2015 11:05 AM

Ridiculous. If British estate agents have a poor reputation AND they're the cheapest in the world (by a long way), then surely regulation makes obvious sense, even if this simply meant that agents had to pass a basic competency test as a minimum.

From: Richard Rawlings 26 May 2015 10:36 AM

Breaking News