There have been several thought provoking articles written recently on open houses and why some agents really do them. The point that agents would offer to hold a listing open while surreptitiously using them to just prospect for buyer clients is actually a rather old modus operandi; however, my experience has been different.
I have run into sellers who complained to me that they found out that their last agent was using their home as “buyer bait” to be sure, but more often than not their complaint was that their last agent did NOT hold their house open. In my neck of the woods, many sellers still believe that open houses are effective marketing. I disagree. Open houses for me have been by and large a chance to catch up on emails and wish I was home with my kids.
While they are very effective in markets like Manhattan, I view open houses in Westchester as a relic of a bygone era. Years ago, there were no published photos of homes for sale. The only way for a consumer to see the interior was to walk through. Today, with 30 photos on our local MLS, virtual tours, Youtube and other media, they are virtually obsolete.
Think about it. We as listing agents promise that only pre-approved buyers will come look at the listing. Then, for 2 hours on a weekend afternoon, we allow anyone who can walk on their hind legs and sign what we hope is their real name to walk through. It’s inconsistent. And in my experience, it is ineffective. The chance that a person is not a nozy neighbor and truly qualified for a house is low. We’re just swinging blindly. And that’s no way to do business.
I do, upon occasion, hold a listing open. But I prefer that it be under the umbrella of a proactive marketing plan as opposed to a reactive plan. In a reactive markeing plan (which is about 95% of the market), a seller in my area would call the listing agent and demand an open house because nothing is happening. The listing agent, guilty that there are no offers and eager to please, holds the open house. The plan? They hope someone walks in and they get lucky. In cases like this, a seller will only agree to reduce their price after an open house- if it doesn’t sell. That’s no way to do business.
In a proactive marketing plan, an open house isn’t held to pacify a nervous seller. It is done to attract lurkers, which is to say silent consumers who watch homes online but seldom inquire, to come and look without having to make an appointment or engage an agent that they may not want to commit to using. In proactive marketing, an open house is not only heavily publicized and well planned, it will be used to announce a price improvement and add some sizzle to the steak. In proactive marketing, you aren’t pacifying a nervous seller. And even then, you might not (and probably won’t) sell it, but you can own the outcome.
By far, the Internet has changed the game of how real estate is sold. In Westchester, open houses are, in my view, mostly relics that some sellers cling to as a means of doing something because a property has not sold. In some of those cases, an open may indicate a reactive marketing plan. As for picking up buyers? I’d rather pick up my daughter.



QRM, Skin in the Game, and the Abdication of Conventional Wisdom
I have read quite a few pieces of commentary in support of government initiatives to marginalize FHA and other high LTV (which is to say low down payment) mortgages, because the of the defective notion that if people don’t have “skin in the game” that they’ll be less likely to pay their mortgage.
Let’s be clear. The vast majority of people who aren’t paying their mortgage are in hardship. They may have no equity, low downpayment or not, but that is an effect, not a cause of their position. Of my residential 44 listings, almost 20 are “short sales” where I’m going to have my clients walk away from the closing without a penny for the privilege of avoiding a foreclosure and leaving their home with dignity in the hopes of a fresh start down the road. Many of them had 20% or more equity at one time, and the downturn erased it. But their reason for selling is the loss of a job or loss of income, not their equity.
The argument for supporting QRM (qualified residential mortgages) is a poor one. I have 70 years of sustained prosperity in American housing, the backbone of which has always been the FHA and its 3.5% downpayment, to support that statement. Mandating that more mortgages have a 20% or more downpayment is fixing what isn’t broken. The housing crash turned our world upside down, but it ought not cause us to burn our axe handle to generate some heat.
Among the arguments against lower downpayment loans is that the day a person closes, they have little or no equity.
So what. Even when real estate was appreciating in a consistent way (which is to say, the last 70 years prior to 2007), conventional wisdom was that if you sold your home less than 5 years after purchasing that you’d most likely lose or break even, because of closing costs and brokerage fees. Even if you had equity and proceeds, you’d lose. So what changed?
As I type this, almost 40% of all residential properties with a mortgage in the USA are under water. With rare exception, the only people who are not paying their mortgages are the people who can’t. People want to stay in their homes as long as they can afford them. If they can’t afford them, they have to sell whether they have equity or not.
As long as we continue to fall on our spear with ill-conceived government “fixes” that do nothing but perpetuate misery, the fool’s gold “solution” of raising down payment requirements rings as true as “let them eat cake.” Sensible, responsibly underwritten, full documentation mortgages with low down payments are part of the solution and always have been. Millions of them brought about sustained and stable prosperity from the onset of the FHA in the 1930s through the growth post World War II America.
It is a slippery slope to marginalize lower downpayment loans. If we do, FHA and other backbones of the economy are next. And this is too important to politicize.