- 最后登录
- 2011-8-19
- 在线时间
- 902 小时
- 寄托币
- 828
- 声望
- 30
- 注册时间
- 2008-9-30
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 5
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 675
- UID
- 2552405
- 声望
- 30
- 寄托币
- 828
- 注册时间
- 2008-9-30
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 5
|
Giving suggestions about which real estate firm to choose, the author argues that Adams does overwhelmingly better than Fitch, therefore anyone who want to sell their home quickly at a good price should use Adams. Scrutiny of his evidences here, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to his conclusion.
First of all, the author points out that many of Fitch’s agents are only part-time, not mentioning about the relevant information of Adams. Even if agents of Adams work full-time, which is the most possible in this case, we cannot conclude that Adams actually does better than Fitch. Maybe Fitch runs more effectively, or the industry can reach the best point in cost benefit analysis if employees work part-time. Lacking evidences to rule out these possibilities, the author cannot draw any conclusion over this issue.
As to the revenue behavior, Adams’ overall larger revenue does not necessarily indicate its stronger competence than that of Fitch. It is well known that profit of a company is more representative than revenue to evaluate the firm competence; therefore without data relating to management cost, the author cannot convince me that Adams really does better than Fitch. Even if we admit that revenue can explain something, the per agent revenue of Adams, however, falls far behind of that of Fitch. Besides, market behavior of these two firms last year may not be representative enough to support the author’s argument, for it is entirely possible revenue of Fitch was always higher than that of Adams with the exceptional case last year. Therefore, the suggestion remains unconvincing.
Finally, two experiences on selling houses of the author lend weak support to the conclusion. It could be the case that the location of his first house 10 years ago is much worse than that of his second house, leading to more time for Fitch to sell it. And it is also possible that the demand of second hand houses 10 years ago is relatively too small to the demand last year. Yet, there are no these information in his remarks. Without considering these factors, the author arbitrarily believes that Fitch should be responsible for the ineffectiveness of the whole trade process, on which his conclusion mainly depends. Unless the author put forward more details about his different experiences with these two firms, we are still unconvinced that we should use Adams if we have a house to sell.
In sum, the author’s remarks in this discussion are not trustable enough to offer real suggestions in our decision making when we are confronted to the similar situation. Only a more detailed information about these two firms to the point and more specific descriptions about his own experience, can we be convinced that Adams really is more professional that Fitch, or the opposite. |
|