Searching for the Good Stuff... Last week's Dispatches, Do Co-brokered Deals Sell for More? (Apr 5) and Co-Brokerage Generates Heat (Apr 7) produced sharply worded comments from brokers both pro and con.

But Paul Ruff, president of Triumph Real Estate in Englewood, CO, writes from a different perspective as an active consumer of brokerage services. "I used to be an investment broker. Now I’m an investor/developer acting as principal only. As such, my perspective is not unique, but may represent a 'balanced' viewpoint...

"First, I don’t think that listing brokers are suggesting that they 'know every buyer in the market and therefore don’t need co-brokers' as was suggested in your April 5 Dispatch.

"But rather that with today’s technology, including CoStar Exchange, LoopNet with ProspectList, national network investor databases and other resources, brokers really do have access to an enormous number of active buyers for investment properties directly.

"No, they don’t have all potential buyers covered. But do they have enough to satisfy their sellers that the offering is getting enough exposure? Probably.

"Secondly, we see most deals in the market directly from listing brokers, with only occasional gems from 'word-on-the-street' opportunities.

"The upshot is that buyer brokers are only encouraged to participate on tough listings, so they’re not often in position to present the really good stuff to their clients.

"If an investor were to engage a broker as a buyer agent to find something in particular, they would do so knowing that they wouldn’t see everything available due to a lack of access in the investment marketplace. So it doesn’t happen very often.

"Unfortunately, that means brokers who have worked hard to build loyal relationships with real estate investors can only help on the sell side, because they’re not needed on the buy side.

"Once again, technology has shifted the paradigm of real estate service delivery."

--Peter Pike