Sole agency vs multi-agency: An investigation of agency practice across England and Wales

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of different agency practice on agency fees, business efficiency, and housing market liquidity. Design/methodology/approach: The paper studies the effect of sole and multiple agency practices on estate agent efficiency, housing market liquidity, and commission fee levels. The analysis uses the survey data from 2000 to 2006 to investigate the different agency practices across England and Wales and their effect on estate agency business efficiency, housing market liquidity, selling price, and fee levels. Findings: The empirical analysis confirms that agency practice has a locality bias, that is, some regions are more likely to adopt sole agency practice than other regions. The estate agents with a sole agency practice charge a lower agency fee, help clients to achieve better selling price and are more efficient; whereas multiple agency practice facilitates liquidity in the housing market, but experiences higher fall-through rate. Research limitations/implications: The research focuses on estate agent rather than consumers due to the limitation of the data based on a research project concerning transaction costs designed prior to this analysis. Originality/value: There is little other research that investigates the residential estate agency practice and its impact on housing market in the past three decades in England and Wales. The findings are a useful guide for practitioners to better understand the issues associated with different agency practices and should enhance business efficiency and performance.

Financing of SME's: an asset side story

The main sources of financing for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are equity (internally generated cash), trade credit paid on time, long and short term bank credits, delayed payment on trade credit and other debt. The marginal costs of each financing instrument are driven by asymmetric information (cost of gathering and analysing information) and transactions costs associated with non-payment (costs of collecting and selling collateral). According to the Pecking Order Theory, firms will choose the cheapest source in terms of cost. In the case of the static trade-off theory, firms choose finance so that the marginal costs across financing sources are all equal, thus an additional Euro of financing is obtained from all the sources whereas under the Pecking Order Theory the source is determined by how far down the Pecking Order the firm is presently located. In this paper, we argue that both of these theories miss the point that the marginal costs are dependent of the use of the funds, and the asset side of the balance sheet primarily determines the financing source for an additional Euro. An empirical analysis on a unique dataset of Portuguese SME's confirms that the composition of the asset side of the balance sheet has an impact of the type of financing used and the Pecking Order Theory and the traditional Static Trade-off theory are rejected.