A recent advice article in the Chicago Tribune counseled listers to choose, not the top-selling AGENT, but the top-selling FIRM.
I have a guess about the reasoning, but what do y'all think? (My reason contains the word 'sitting'.)
That should not be the only reason. There are usually good agents in every office, unless they are very small and even then I am sure there are some better than others.
OK... we waited long enough... clue us in.
Q. Who knows about a new listing first?
A. The listing office.
There are ways an office can 'sit' on a listing for a day or two, giving the office staff first crack at selling it -- before it goes into the MLS. A good manager wants staff that both gets listings and SELLS them. His income and the firm's are dependent on the staff's ability to 'move the merchandise', not just obtain (list) some.
That might be a reason as a buyer to choose an firm with the most listings, because you might get a "first crack." But how does it help the seller? It's keeping your house from the full market for a few days.
My thoughts about an office sitting on a listing are only a sidebar to the Trib advice. (For instance, the office knows Realtor A is about to list the X House. The listing comes in on Saturday evening. Realtor A and that office's staff has until Monday morning -- and perhaps a Realtors' Open House Tuesday -- to try to find a buyer.)
I think the Trib advisor was saying to list with an *active* office. Some offices just aren't held to a high standard of productivity; you want one that IS.
(How do we rid ourselves of spam like the Spain tout?)