So we’ve moved into our new house here in Buenos Aires, which is a bit of a miracle. The wish list we gave our agent was pretty much impossible. Four bedrooms (most places here not that big), fully-furnished (not normally how it’s done), all services – electricity, water, internet and so-forth – contracted by the owner (we aren’t eligible to get these ourselves without being residents) and a one-year lease (standard here is two). Plus we wanted it walking distance to both Scarlett’s and Ami’s schools (which are 2km apart). So there’s a pretty small pocket that we’re restricted to.
The house is all that, and so much more. The best thing about it by far is the owners. As the perfect vignette demonstrating the cultural differences between here and Australia, the owners threw a house warming party for us, and now we are becoming close friends. (I don’t think I’ve ever even once spoken to a tenant of a house I’ve rented out back home.)
But it almost fell through all together because of their real estate agent. As often happens with agency, the interests of the agent and the client weren’t aligned. We wanted a one-year lease. The owners were happy with a one-year lease. But the agent wanted a two-year lease because that doubles her commission (paid upfront here). And she was playing hard ball while lying to both of us about what the other was saying.
In my favourite book of the year so far, Enough, John Bogle talks about this issue and the impact it’s having on the US finance system. He says ”these new agents haven’t behaved as agents should. Our corporations, pension managers, and mutual fund managers have too often put their interests ahead of the principals whom they are duty-bound to represent.”
The lesson for us in all this is to make sure our interests are as aligned as possible with those of our clients. Design your programs so that it’s better for everyone if the client gets the results you promise. And be very conscious of the places where your interests diverge.
