Revisiting Dual Agency – Like Gefilte fish, sometimes it makes sense

(This is a little trip through Kris' brain that I originally penned back in July, 2009. With all of the recent hubub surrounding the listing syndication debate, many have chosen to make the idea of dual agency central to their arguments (ironically, on both sides). So it seemed fitting to rerun my own position on the idea of an agent playing a dual role in the transaction. In short, it's risky business at best, but I continue to hold that whether the practice is the devil incarnate or not is strictly situational. It depends on a lot of things — including the buyers and sellers and their particular needs, the circumstances, and the agent involved. Gefilte fish is generally sort of gnarly too, but there a couple of times a year is makes sense and ends up tasting pretty darn good.

Oh – and the part about the buyer's agent being disintermediated by the web? Thankfully, I wrong about that one. But listing agent shoppers are still out there in force, make no mistake.)

photo credit: Ruth L

(Editor's Note: Steve is somewhere out of broadband range with Daughter #2 conquering yet another pristine high Sierra trail, this being his 48^th "last-trip-ever-cause-I'm-getting-too-old-I-promise" backpacking adventure. I do my best work — and get into the most trouble — when he is unaware.)

It seems we are at it again. Dual agency is the topic du jour on the blogs this week (which makes no sense, but you get what I mean), and I spent most of that time plugging my ears and averting my eyes. That is because I seem to be in the minority on this issue. But having decided recently to get back on the horse, I am ready to declare "game on."

Dual agency, strictly speaking, is where the same brokerage represents both the buyer and a seller in a transaction. If two different agents from the same company, say Millineum 42 or Rock Solid Realty, are representing both parties, this is dual agency, but that is not the kind of dual agency most are concerned with. It is the single-agent dual agent which tends to get everyone in a lather.

Dual Agency Refresher

Say I have a listing contract with a seller. I have an agency relationship with the seller; I am his fiduciary. Now, what if a would-be buyer comes to me and asks me to write an offer for him? In this case, if I agree, I also am establishing an agency relationship with the buyer; now, I am his fiduciary as well. On the face, this sounds like the work of the devil, and rightly so. The argument is rather obvious. How can I pound my fists on the table in an attempt to negotiate the highest price for the seller and then, presto, change hats and chairs and argue for the lowest price for my buyer client? I can't. But…

I'll repeat a little speech we are called on to deliver at almost every listing presentation, and it is generally in response to the question, "If you represent the buyer too, will you reduce your fee?" Remember, the listing contract specifies both the total fee due to the listing agent and the portion of that fee that will be paid to a cooperating broker. Right or wrong, the seller is paying the listing agent the fee, and the seller and listing agent are agreeing that a portion of the fee (usually, but not always, half) will be sent the way of the buyer's broker if there is one. In short, the seller is hiring me to bring a palatable offer to the table. Part of doing that is by offering compensation to another agent who can assist, but it is the listing agent's contract.

The Speech

But, back to the speech. It goes something like this. Dual agency by its very nature begs at least the perception of conflict of interest, so it is not something we seek out. In addition to marketing your home and generating offers, my job is to negotiate the best price for your home that the market will bear while keeping us all out of the pokey. In certain circumstances, dual agency may be to your benefit and to the buyer's. In others, it may not. Under no circumstances will we act as dual agents if even one of the parties is just slightly less than thrilled with the notion. Thrilled clients trump the paycheck every day of the week. That's how we roll.

Where is the argument?

So, why would dual agency possible be acceptable, even beneficial, to both parties? There can be many reasons. Let's start with defining the "agent." I happen to work in tandem with my husband and business partner. Functionally, we do not operate as the two-headed agent. He has closed transactions where I have never met the client or seen the home and the other way around. In the event we both have an initial relationship with the client, it always evolves to the point where there is one primary point of contact, and the other is relegated to back-up mode. Who takes the lead is a natural evolution, sometimes dependent on schedules but more often on personalities.

So, we have the ability to act as dual agents because we are "dual" agents. This may sound like semantics, and it won't work if you are working with agents who are ethically challenged, but ethics are central to our model and our being. The day I knowingly breach ethics, you have my permission to shoot me through the temple and call it a day. (I'm embellishing; report me to the Department of Real Estate and have my license revoked. It's just as painful but a little less a felony.) Case in point – we actually had a listing this year where I was the lead on the listing, while Steve had a buyer client he had been working with for a year who wanted to make an offer. He did, with Steve, and two other buyers did, with their own agents. The home closed escrow two months ago, and Steve's client is still out looking. It was one of my proudest moments.

If you as an agent are in a position to divide and conquer, it can work. If you have an established relationship with a buyer who trusts only you to represent them, it can work. If you are a single agent who has to deal loyalties from a deck just to "make the deal," then the dual agency naysayers have a valid point.

Web 2.0 is Disintermediating the Buyers' Agent

I'm not saying this is a good thing, cutting the buyers' agent out of the equation. It's not; in fact, it stinks. It's just that the reality of the world in which we now live is that consumers are empowered with information and access. They are taking matters into their own hands. And many buyers sense that by buying direct, there may be a benefit. I'm not saying it is always so, or even mostly so (Note to attorneys: Commissions are negotiable!), but variable commissions are not all that uncommon. An example of a variable commission is where the listing agent agrees to a total commission of "X" unless he represents both parties, in which case the commission will be "X minus something."  So, free agent buyers (no pun intended) are becoming more commonplace. And, in the case of the variable commission and two parties living in the land of reasonableness, a gap can be closed to their mutual benefit. Turn your back on this segment of the buyer population, and you are shrinking your selling client's buyer pool to their detriment.

Circumstantial Evidence

Finally, circumstances may beg for a dual agency situation. Recently, we were approached by a would-be buyer for one of our listing who wanted the home – badly. They were informed, they had been looking, they had done the research and the math, and they knew exactly what they wanted to pay. Only, they had a home to sell. Now, had they waltzed in with another agent, our client may have been less than inclined to entertain their contingent offer. But, the seller trusted us. They knew how we marketed, they trusted our opinion of value, and they knew that if we said the buyer's home would be under contract in a given period of time, it would. Anyone else, and they likely would have kicked them to the curb. Using the divide and conquer approach, we now have two clients who couldn't be happier with the outcome, which is ultimately the goal.

In Short (like I'm capable of that)

Dual agency has many forms. It can be evil incarnate or it take the form of accomplishing what we were hired to do – sell the home.  It is situational; there are situations in which is can work exceedingly well, yet other times it can be a recipe for disaster. Making a blanket indictment of the practice is, in my opinion, knee-jerk. One of the biggest vocal opponents of dual agency, Ardell DellaLoggia, once said it best:

"If" the beginning of every residential real estate transaction were the buyers and the sellers and their agents meeting and chatting, maybe having dinner together and a drink or two for an hour. Then everyone walks through the house together while the seller tells the buyer the story of their life in the house and the buyer and agents ask questions. Then the offer is written, and proceeds through the inspections to find things the seller just truly doesn't know about. At the end of the transaction when all items and terms are fully negotiated, the buyer comes into the room with a check in his hand. The seller comes into the room with the keys to all doors and garage door openers and manuals on appliances. The agents review the final numbers and nod to the closing agent.

Sometimes, just sometimes, that is what a dual agency situation can accomplish.

Sandicor fires a shot across the third-party syndication bow.

The problem with not having all of the facts is that you can end up feeling pretty stupid. And for the record, Steve is wearing an "I'm With Stupid" t-shirt as we speak. (Also, for the record, he rarely has occassion to change out of it.)

When I first heard that our Sandicor MLS was going to be adding an “advertising remarks” field to our listing input forms, I silently criticized them of being all-over-the-place-inconsistent.

First, here is the idea. Beginning this week, when agents input listings in the MLS, they will now be able to include advertising remarks — remarks like, "Hey! Look over here! I'm the listing agent, and here is my phone number and website address!"  These remarks will in turn be included in the listing feed provided to third-party syndication sites (think Zillow and Trulia), should agents opt-into syndication.

Now, I get that this is a good thing in at least one respect; it means the right guy just might have a fighting chance of being picked out of a line-up on third-party sites as the one who is actually representing the property owner. This is in fact one of the many arguments against syndication — that the agent or brokerage providing the data lost in a sea of competing agent advertisements or worse. Listing agent information is absent altogether.

But the very idea that Sandicor, with this new advertising remarks field, seemed to be at least tacitly supporting syndication by enabling it smacked of hypocrisy in the wake of the recent debut of their own front-facing consumer website. That’s the website, you might recall, they described as designed to capture the consumer traffic from the Zillows and Trulias of the world while protecting agents from third-party evil-doers out only (at least for now) to grab their advertising dollars.

In other words, it sounded like they were saying, “We are helping Zillow and the likes (by making it easy and attractive for our agents to send their listings on over), but we really want them dead.” So, my knee-jerk reaction was, “Dudes. Do we have a plan?”

I think we might.

I admittedly didn’t have all the facts (and probably still don’t), which is an unfortunate side effect of being a working girl. So, what I was not aware of until this morning was this: While I was scanning my client's disclosures and meeting the photographer, Sandicor also had decided that as part of their little data feed remapping effort, they would be limiting the number of photos included in the third-party feeds –  to four. Compare that to the twenty-five photos we can actually upload in the MLS, and consider that photos are king. Now, who's your daddy? Take that, syndication sites!

Seriously, I may feel differently when I have had time to sleep on it, but right now I am standing on my chair and offering a personal round of applause. This was bold and rather creative. Maybe it’s not “No more syndication. Period!” uber-bold, but I can think of about forty reasons why it was a smart middle-ground approach to take. I can start with the simple argument that not all of Sandicor's subscribing agents and brokers are on my side of the syndication argument and, while I might lack polital acumen, they must be political; I could end with the idea that our MLS would probably have a hard time defending a position of telling us where and with whom we can and can't advertise our listings.

But, I hold firm to my belief that third-party syndication is run amok. In it's present form, it benefits neither the consumer nor the agents and brokers. It benefits the third-party site holders and, in one case, their shareholders. And I do not believe, as some have suggested, that we are too far down this road to reverse course. Apparently, neither does Sandicor.

I will indeed sleep on it. In the meantime, I'll give credit where credit is due. For now, this feels like a good move.

The Debate About Syndicating to Third-Party Aggregation Sites

Note: If you are a non-real estate type, you may find this post only mildly interesting; it’s an important topic nonetheless. If you are a real estate type, chances are you have probably already written on the subject. It turns out at least four of my buddies – Jay Thompson, Rob Hahn, Drew Meyers and Jeffrey Douglas — are on the other side of this issue. Et tu, Brutes?)

As reported by Inman News (“Premium” content – sorry), Abbott Realty Group (ARG) recently announced that they will no longer syndicate listings to third-party aggregators. Subsequently, a big ol’ agent food fight ensued. OK, it’s more of a heated debate. But there are definitely two camps in the syndication discussion, and it’s an important one for buyers and seller, as well as agents, to understand. If affects us all.

If you are one of the three people remaining who hasn’t seen Jim Abbott’s video on the subject, here it is:

ARG’s decision followed a similar announcement by Edina Realty back in November. At the core, the arguments against syndication involve two issues: Data integrity and data control.

I’ll start with the issue of data integrity, because that is the simpler of the two. Sites like Trulia, Zillow and Realtor.com – let’s call them the troika – display loads of inaccurate data. There is no argument there. Because many of their listings are manually entered, many are outdated. I can point to numerous examples of homes being displayed as for sale that sold six months, or more, ago. I have seen my own listings entered by other agents as their own. There are foreclosure sites who routinely list homes by street – no address – that are not for sale but simply have had a Notice of Default filed, with the idea that buyers might contact their agents or sign up for there foreclosure listing services.

Some have argued that the likes of the troika do not have a corner on the inaccurate data market – that MLS listings are, too, fraught with errors. And while this is true, MLS errors represent agent input mistakes, oversight, or mere sloppiness. You won’t find double entries or intentional deceptions – or scams.

And then there are the rental scams which not only pose an inconvenience to our clients but present potential security risks. Where Craigslist used to own the rental scam space, we now see our listings appearing on the troika sites as rentals, and this happens nearly every time we list a home.  One of our clients learned that he was our latest victim when the first of a series of would-be renters knocked on his door – this one a Highway Patrolman who caused our elderly client much undo anxiety. Another client learned of the rental posting at the conclusion of a showing and from the showing agent who, having seen the listing on Trulia, was there only to help her client secure a six-month lease.

Absent syndication, would we eliminate rental scams? Of course not. The photos and listing information can be lifted just as easily from my site or any site with an IDX feed. But eliminating the ability for the scammers to do their one-stop shopping will make things a little more difficult.

Let’s talk about the larger issue of control. It’s about our information being hijacked for fun and profit and, yes, we handed them the keys.  It is about extortion. You gave us the car, and now you must pay for the ad, the enhanced positioning or profile, if you ever want to drive the conversation again. We are starting to see what this means for the agents and brokers. What does it mean for the buyers and sellers?

Let me share a story, a story that most agents have no doubt heard before. Our listings are on Realtor.com (no, we haven’t opted out), but we discontinued paying for the “special premium featured titanium agent” package on Realtor.com years ago when the bounty got a little too pricey and, philosophically, we got a little irked. So when I visited the page for one of our listings this week and filled out the contact form for more information, I wasn’t surprised by the outcome.

First we received an auto-generated response ensuring us that our inquiry had been sent to a “local area expert.” The “expert,” I’m sure, is a very fine company. It just happened to be one I had never heard of, with an office twenty miles away, and one who to my knowledge has never sold a home in this particular area. Next came another email informing us that an account had been set up for us on the referral agent’s website (“Our website has every listing in the San Diego area and it is updated daily”).

The next email was short and sweet; it gave us the name of their preferred “partner” lender who was standing by to help with all of our financing needs. It was the fourth and final email that finally hit on the subject at hand. “I have checked the status on this home and it is currently available. It is a traditional sale with no banks involved (like on a short sale or bank owned home). Did you have some particular questions about the home that I can answer for you?”

That’s it. Now with several hours and two pots of coffee separating me from my original query, I have a mortgage broker referral, I have an account on an agent’s IDX site, yet I still don’t have any answers nor have I been offered an opportunity to view the home I have expressed interest in. This is what we call a buyer left behind. The seller’s home was exposed, all right, but had I been a real buyer, the system failed him.

Further, relinquishing control of the conversation surrounding your inventory violates the most basic principle of Real Estate Career 101: The most valuable thing to a real estate agent is a stick in the ground. This is because listings breed listings, listings breed buyers, and listings build reputation. So when we “virtually” hand third party aggregators our body of work that took years and boatloads of money to cultivate, we slowly erode our own future growth potential – unless of course we pay for the opportunity to redirect the fruits of our labors back home.

Defenders of syndication say that an argument against syndication is an argument for dual agency. Nothing could be further from the truth. Much like you can opt out of syndication, you can opt out of dual agency.  Take the call, answer the questions, and then send the buyer to the nearest competing brokerage to view the home and write the offer if that helps you sleep nights. At least by having had the conversation, you haven’t opted out of your role as the champion for that home you signed on to sell, because that would not be in your client’s best interests.

Both Rob Hahn and Jay Thompson pointed out that Internet Data Exchange (IDX) sites like yours, mine, and the sites of every brokerage in the country, are no different than the Troika sites. I don’t agree. The data accuracy issue becomes a relative non-issue where IDX is concerned save the MLS input errors. Even then, the MLS's have procedures in place for policing and ultimately ensuring compliance. More importantly, IDX sites lack the resale component of the troika sites. While an inquiry on my listing may in fact go the agent-owner of another IDX site – and often does – consumers are generally clear on the fact that they are on a particular broker’s or agent’s site. And while some ambiguity may still exist where an IDX site is concerned, they are not simply trying to sell the customer to the highest bidder.

On a larger scale, this is about an industry handing over the car keys. We moan about the flaws in the Zestimates and then we send Zillow the eyeballs. We gripe about how Trulia and the likes are using our data to redirect our customer contact opportunities (what some agents might call “leads”) and spawn their own IPO’s, yet we continue to click the submit button. We lament the fact that buyers are confused and that the best interests of buyers and sellers alike are not necessarily served by the pay-to-play lead generation model. We defend syndication by saying that our sellers demand it, but our clients in fact look to us to explain what works and doesn’t in marketing their home. If you don’t believe this, then ask yourself when the last time was that you promoted your extensive newspaper advertising program to a would-be seller. Just because it is “free” does not make it a beneficial marketing strategy.

Sure, some sellers may not get it, and therein is the conundrum for both the agent and the brokerage. That’s also the genesis of our fear, our inaction, and our continuing down this dangerous road.

You see, my client’s home does not really need to be on 400 national websites. That is just a myth we have propagated out of convenience and our desire to win listings. It is rhetoric we bought into, rhetoric delivered by those who are in the business of profiting from our business. My client’s home does need to be in the MLS, because it is through that platform of broker cooperation that the overwhelming majority of sales still take place. Of course, through the miracles of IDX, my client’s home will still be exposed far and wide on sites other than the MLS and my own. But those sites are owned and operated by other agents and brokers, not by those who are in business to repurpose and profit from my efforts.

When Brad Inman opened the New York Real Estate Connect conference with a clip from the movie “Network” in which the news anchor shouts, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore,” he was talking about prevailing consumer attitudes in our “cottage economy.” It will take this same kind of outrage within our industry to reverse this trend toward putting distance between our customers and us. Taken to the extreme, this road could be leading toward a destination of disintermediation. In its more basic form, it is a flawed delivery system that benefits neither the customer nor the real estate community.

And it will take more than one ARG with 25 agents or even an Edina Realty with 2100 agents. One little San Diego Castles Realty with 11 agents would most certainly go unnoticed. But, I suppose, that is how big changes start – with little ripples. I, for one, applaud ARG’s move. It was bold and, in my opinion, it was right.

Realtor badge of honor?

I’m really excited this morning. 

As a little background, I am a proud member of the National Association of Realtors – and the California Association of Realtors and the San Diego Association of Realtors. Forget that I have to be a member if I want access to the MLS. That’s just minutia, and that is certainly not why I choose to pay my dues to each every year. Oh, no.

The point is that my membership is a testament to my agent awesomeness and my commitment to upholding the highest ethical standards. That! Oh, and the fact that I find it helpful to have access to show instructions or to be able to upload a listing when need be.

But it’s mostly about what my membership means. Because, as we all know, only ethical agents can write checks. Only ethical agents can call themselves Realtors (little “r”).

And as if I wasn’t getting my money’s worth before, things have just gotten better. Today I heeded the call to action in my inbox:

California REALTORS® have another way to differentiate themselves and show consumers they maintain a high level of knowledge of the home-buying and selling process and are bound by a strict code of ethics by using the REALTOR® Badge, a free C.A.R. member benefit recently introduced by Real Estate Business Services® Inc. (REBS®).

That’s right. I didn’t have to pay a thing for that badge; it’s free! And those folks at REBS are really something. Not only were they commissioned to create a badge – with embed code and everything – but they delivered!

Why do I need a badge, you might ask? Well, duh. You weren’t paying attention. I need to differentiate myself. I have integrity, dang it. Just look at my badge!

CAR says that “the REALTOR® Badge is an easy way to add value to your reputation and online presence.” And on the badge website (yes, they have their own website), consumers can learn the power of this little guy – as if it isn’t immediately obvious.

You want someone that you can trust. Did you know that a REALTOR® cannot mislead a seller as to the value of the property just to get the listing? REALTORS® cannot accept a rebate or commission without the client's knowledge and consent. And your REALTOR® will submit all offers and counter-offers as quickly and objectively as possible as mandated by the "Code of Ethics."

Wow. That’s powerful. Yet I must ask, can a designation portrayed as a widget really assure all that?

If you are an agent, an exalted Realtor (little “R”), I don’t know about you, but I don’t stay up nights worrying about undesignated licensees perpetrating crimes of negligence and dishonesty against the public. What does bother me is when any licensee is incompetent, negligent, or unethical.  I run into them frequently, and they are always members of NAR; I know this because I see their lockbox keys.

If not for a prominently displayed digital impression, how is the consumer to know that their agent is living up to their obligations? Alas, it is often difficult, if not impossible.

These are just a few of the usual suspects:

• The agent who knowingly took a listing priced obscenely over market value. The seller trusts you to honestly advise. They are looking to you for counsel. The adage about things that are too good to be true is lost on someone who is short on equity or long on hope and far too emotionally connected to be objective. Yes, this agent may ultimately spend time and money on a listing that won’t sell, but just as often we see them ride the tide of price reduction until their “buy a listing” strategy is rewarded with a paycheck.
• The agent who talks smack about other agents to anyone who will listen. Other agents know you are breaching ethics when you do this, but the client will never know. Because ethical agents will never tell the customer that you are a weasel. Ethical agents know that bad mouthing other agents is not only poor form but a violation of both common decency and the Code to which they chose to actually subscribe.
• The agent who makes false claims about experience, abilities and past production. Did your parents not teach you anything? Don’t say you sell more homes in a given area than anyone else when you don’t. Don’t say you have the best marketing plan in the tri-state area and then rush out the door, your first-ever listing contract in hand, to buy a camera and take a Photoshop class. And don’t have your cousin write fictional testimonial letters. These are all real examples, and they all constitute lying. Be honest, and sell your enthusiasm if that’s all you have. We all started somewhere, and your clients just might respect you for it.

The common thread is that these agents are primarily concerned with competing against other agents to get the business, when what they should really be focused on is doing the business.  Once an agent is in your employ, they have a fiduciary duty to place your interests above their own. But even before that, they have a moral obligation to act with honesty and integrity.

The Realtor Code of Ethics Preamble says:

The term REALTOR® has come to connote competency, fairness, and high integrity resulting from adherence to a lofty ideal of moral conduct in business relations. No inducement of profit and no instruction from clients ever can justify departure from this ideal.

OK, that sounds a little silly given the generally reputation of our industry. But if you are going to toss around commemorative virtual plaques, shouldn’t this whole higher ground stuff be at least sort-of true?  I understand that CAR is trying to further the reputation of our ranks (and, perhaps, the reputation of the associations), but just saying so won’t make it so.

Departures can “never be justified,” yet departures we see. And, sadly the customer may never have knowledge because of their own expectations that dealings are honest – because of their expectations that their own best interests are at the center of the real world discussion.

So I guess a little self-policing is in order. To all of the agents who can’t or won’t do the right thing, I hereby call on you to turn in your badges. I’m keeping mine because, every day, I at least try to earn it.

Thanks to PicketReport.com, I know my daughter is among the Power Elite (a little too late)

I just returned from my semi-annual pilgrimage to the Inman News Real Estate Connect conference. Defying logic and laughing in the face of all that is good and decent, the event planners decided years ago that the January installment should be held in New York City. And each year I am reminded why New York is the “City that never sleeps.” That’s because they have to keep moving lest they freeze to death.

Truthfully, this year I lucked out, as they were having a bit of a warm front. I generally enjoyed balmy 40-degree weather. And it’s a good thing, because I was pulling double duty. Not only was I there to do a little panel moderating and to keep abreast of the latest business and technology trends in real estate – all within the warm confines of the conference venue – but I was also the advance party for my daughter’s own Manhattan Project.

My oldest daughter relocated to the big city yesterday, one day after I returned, for an editorial gig at New York Magazine. Through luck of timing, I was charged with leading the reconnaissance mission to meet the new roommate and attend to a few last minute details. Let me tell you that nothing says fun like hauling an end table five blocks through Chelsea in casual business attire and four inch heels.

First let me say on a minor real estate note that, despite the warnings, you really can use Craigslist to find rentals. But you have to do your homework. Trust no one.

Her new home was in fact secured from a Craigslist ad, site unseen, and she did send money in advance. This, however, occurred after a joint forensic investigation of the neighborhood, the property and (most importantly) the landlord that left us knowing more about this poor, unsuspecting coop owner than she knows about herself.

Thanks to the power of the search box, we knew how old she was, where she was born, where her parents live, her familial status, employment history, and even the fact that she contributed $200 in 1993 to the Bush-Cheney campaign. (Admittedly, this last one might have been a deal breaker for some, but if you really need a place to live, you must be willing make some compromises.)

The point is this. Whether you are looking for a rental or a home to purchase, you have nearly unlimited resources at your fingertips which will allow you be entirely informed. From property details to neighborhood culture — and, yes, the profile of the guy who might be sitting at the other side of the negotiating table — you owe it to yourself to do your homework.

It was interesting, then, that I was introduced to a snappy little neighborhood profile site, PicketReport.com.  It’s a tradition at Inman to feature a handful of start-up companies in the real estate space – as they call them, “New Kids on the Block.” I love this site. The screen shot above shows their neighborhood information for Scripps Ranch.

It’s in Beta, which means there are still some glitches. For instance, if you are familiar with Scripps Ranch, you will note that the Middle School that was relocated several years ago is still plotted in its former location, as is the elementary school that took over their lease. Oh, and then there is the lifestyle profile for my 92131 Zip code that, apparently, consists of “flourishing families.” Flourishing families are defined as “affluent, middle-aged families and couples earning prosperous incomes and living very comfortable, active lifestyles.”

I am relatively comfortable, writing this in my jeans and sneakers, and I do happen to fall into the “families and couples” category. The prosperous, active and middle-aged parts, however, are subject to some serious debate.

I sure wish I had known about this site prior to moving my daughter to Chelsea. By comparison, I now know that these are my daughter’s people:

Power Elite: The wealthiest households in the US, living in the most exclusive neighborhoods, and enjoying all that life has to offer.

And as I glance at my account balances, I suddenly know this to be true. I think PicketReport.com can safely drop the “Beta” now.