FORWARD
Below is a short string of experiments inspired by curiosity. In 1966, at 21 years of age, with a new license to sell real estate and having a broker with integrity, drive, and a trusting personality, it was a super-exciting launch to what I now look back on and reflect was a long and exciting career. My broker became my mentor and was an ardent supporter of the National Association of Realtors (NAR), so it was only natural for the enthusiasm for NAR to be imbued in my beliefs. Over the decades, as I learned and observed through experience, that enthusiasm gradually faded into reservations and, over time, into a skeptical or contrarian point of view. Curious, I performed relatively simple tests, or experiments, to validate or extinguish my observations. This page comprises short stories describing some of the tests. The most recent post is on the top of the page. Please scroll down to read more stories as they are posted.
The Gamble That Changed Green Bay Real Estate: How Home Inspections Came to Town
In 1985, when home inspections were still viewed with skepticism by most real estate agents, I saw an opportunity that others missed. As a broker in Green Bay, Wisconsin, I had spent years climbing through attics, investigating basements, and pushing through shrubbery to address customer complaints about home conditions. One lesson stood out above all others: water was every home’s worst enemy.
While a few larger cities had already embraced professional home inspection services, Green Bay was late to the game. When Neal Ewing, an engineer-turned-entrepreneur, opened the city’s first home inspection company, he faced an uphill battle. Real estate agents across the nation, including those in our conservative Wisconsin market, viewed inspections as “deal killers” and unnecessary complications.
Business was slow for Ewing’s new venture.
But where others saw obstacles, Neal and I saw potential. Our real estate company was always exploring new ways to stand out in the market—some ideas our agents embraced, others they rejected outright. This time, I had a radical proposal: what if we offered pre-inspections on every new listing, with no upfront cost to the seller?
I invited Neal Ewing to our office to discuss the concept. His engineering background and professional demeanor impressed me, and we struck an innovative deal: his company would inspect each home as soon as it was listed but would only collect payment from the seller when the property sold. If a home didn’t sell, the inspection would be free.
We presented the program to our agents with four key selling points for homeowners:
- Their property would stand out in the market.
- The home would likely sell for more money – added value for the buyer.
- Buyers, typically cautious about condition issues, might make decisions faster.
- If any defects went undetected, the responsibility would fall on the inspector, not the seller, who passed the responsibility along to a trained expert.
Initially, only a few agents tried the program. But as success stories began to circulate, more joined in. Our market share grew, and Ewing’s business flourished. Within six months, a second inspection company opened in Green Bay—the ultimate validation of our experiment.
The strategy had transformed a service that agents once resisted into a powerful competitive advantage. What began as a creative solution to agents’ reluctance became a win for everyone involved: sellers gained confidence, buyers received transparency, our agents won more listings, and our company increased its market share. Sometimes, the best way to overcome resistance isn’t to fight it—it’s to remove the risk entirely.
————————————————————-
The $75,000 Question: A Tale of Three Appraisers
What happens when three professional appraisers evaluate the same house on the same day? As a real estate agent in the early 1970s, I discovered the answer could be surprisingly complex—and expensive.
I was tasked with selling a unique property owned by a prominent local physician. The house was a challenge from the start: a large, contemporary two-story home where eight children had been raised. While well-loved, it was also well-worn, complete with original, threadbare carpeting throughout. The property sat on a short street of high-end homes in a neighborhood where most houses were notably less valuable.
The home presented a perfect storm of pricing challenges. In our conservative Midwest community, contemporary design was already a tough sell. Add to that a property that was both overbuilt for its neighborhood and in poor condition, and I faced a genuine pricing puzzle. In my years of real estate experience, I’d encountered properties with one of these issues—but never all three at once.
Having previously studied appraisal techniques under James A. Graaskamp, chairman of the University of Wisconsin’s real estate department, I understood the importance of applying logic to property valuation. But this house defied conventional analysis. There were no comparable sales to reference, and I needed a solid foundation for discussions with both the seller and potential buyers.
That’s when I had an unusual idea. I knew from my training that an appraisal is only valid for the specific day it’s performed—after all, a house could burn down overnight or be affected by other value-changing events. So why not schedule three separate appraisers to evaluate the property on the same day? I arranged for early morning, mid-day, and late afternoon appointments, being careful not to inform the appraisers about each other to prevent any potential influence on their assessments.
The results were staggering. Three well-respected appraisers from our real estate and lending communities came back with vastly different valuations: $100,000, $150,000, and $175,000. The $75,000 spread between the highest and lowest appraisals was shocking, though perhaps understandable given the property’s unique characteristics and the lack of comparable sales. In the end, the home sold for approximately $130,000—almost exactly the average of the three appraisals.
The thorough approach impressed the homeowners and provided valuable insights for negotiations. More importantly, it taught me an unforgettable lesson about the complexities and subjectivity inherent in real estate valuation, even among seasoned professionals.
This same experiment would produce the same results if it were replicated today. The reason it hasn’t changed is because the rules that appraisers follow today were established decades ago. If we started to create rules today from scratch, the scientific theory would remain the centerpiece with specific modifications.
—————————————————————–