I expect that the BB program is a HUGE moneymaker and has potential to produce far more revenue than membership dues. I expect the Porch sponsored program participation is being paid in one form or another.
The BB program was a stroke of genius that I mistook for another simple gimmick when it came out. I wish I could have thought of something that would generate $5 for every inspection performed by thousands of inspectors each day. The occasional cost of having to buy a house at market value, then resell it for close to the same price is a pittance by comparison to the revenue produced. The cost of the occasional buy back is probably worth less than the value of the advertising produced by the transaction.
The only question on the Buy Back is it underwritten? If not what happens if we have another sudden and unexpected downturn in the housing market like 2007/2008? When people were desperate to unload their homes because they were owed more then they were worth.
I don’t get it… If as you say “has potential to produce far more revenue than membership dues” why bother hooking up with Porch who has a less than stellar public reputation? :-k
With Buy-Back I do not want to worry about who will be the first client to take advantage of it, especially over something very minimal like a faulty GFCI. Then have to start dealing with the process/headaches. I get very few call backs, maybe one or two per hundred inspections, with simple questions or for me to clarify something. During 12 years of inspecting I’m not aware of any client wishing they hadn’t bought the house, at least not for something I missed.
Also with the issue I have with BuyBack is that the seller (my client who was the buyer and paid no commission) will now have to pay the 6% commission. So when selling the $200,000 home they just bought back to Nick they will only get $188,000 after commission. I can’t see too many people doing that. As well as I believe many people/clients will overlook that (commission) when they hire me if I offered this program.
We generally don’t hold any agent to the 6%. If the seller’s agent wants to work for free, we’re fine with that. We’re just not going to be the one to tell the agent to work for free.
That’s not as many as I expected, but the collective revenue from that ain’t chicken feed, either. An impressive concept with low administrative overhead.
Makes a convenient stop-loss for the E&O carrier in those instances where there was a material oversight by the inspector. They should give discounts to those who use the program.