Sticking your head firmly in the sand.

Alan, haven't read Charlie's post yet but will right after this.  It's a good discussion with many valid points. 

Ultimately, it really is up to the seller to decide whether he wants to do an inspection prior to listing or not, provided of course, he is aware that more issues may come up later. 

That indeed is nothing unusual, any of us who had deals fall through for one reason or another and gone through more than one inspection on the same house, know that were will be additional issues even if only small ones.

Inspectors may not always find the same things but they should, hypothetically, find nearly the same things. Yes, they have different backgrounds but now have the same license and should provide very similar service. Perhaps a little standardization is needed?

I also prepare my sellers for the probablity that any home inspection will result in a "honey do" list of sorts.  Depending on the home, I like to see then budget $1K to $2K, so that we can say yes to reasonable requests.  I'll also tell them that every so often a "really big deal" is discovered during a home inspection - active termites, for example, or high radon readings.

Pre-inspections can be helpful in estate-type sales, where the seller I'm dealing with does not have a good working knowledge of how the home has been maintained.

But generally, we wait for the buyer to bring in their own expert, and ask us to address whats important to them.

I agree Alan, 3 inspectors will find 3 different sets of issues.  Talk to your sellers about this, and prepare them for repairs that will need to be made when the buyer does their inspection rather than having them pay an extra $500 for their own.  Pre-sale inspections are required for relos and I have found this very phenomenon, where the relo inspection comes up with a different punch list than the buyer's inspector and the seller ends up paying for a bunch of stuff the buyer doesn't even care about.  And the price of an inpsection.   I like to save my sellers money, not have them spend more.

Alan, I'm up in the air on this one. I can see where a pre-inspection may be benefical for the seller to avert large potential problems. However, in your example I can see where the seller would be very up set paying for an electrician to run a CFCI circuit to the box when one wasn't necessary.

Alan, in your scenario to Coral, even with multiple offers would not "some" of the many roadblocks be removed making the road to closing easier?  Of course if you have a buyer that is waving inspection---that is a problem :)  Would not the cost of the inspection just be built into the sale price of the home?  Is there any room for "full disclosure" simply being the "right thing to do?" 

Alan, I have to concede on that one---if the seller knows ahead of time that there are going to be multiple offers, why bother.  On the other hand since they are going to be making a landfall profit---nothing would really be lost :)

I can see a pre-inspection on an older  home, perhaps, especially if there looks like there have been modifications.  I agree that let the buyer's inspector find (or not find) things that are wrong.  It is what it is, and negotiate repairs from there.

I guess it really depends on what the seller wants to do.  As long as we provide them with the scenarios for how the inspections can play out, they can make an informed decision. Either way, you could get stuck.

The problem is no 2 inspectors are alike and therefore you are right on when they may not find the same things wrong with a home. I find it more beneficial to walk throuh the home with my seller after they sign the listing agreement and stress that items that can be seen with the naked eye be fixed first. I tell them if they are aware of other issues the buyers inspector may find them and then ask for them to be fxed. On the other hand some homes I list where they are selling as a short sale the seller doesnt have $5 nevermind $500 for an inspection or to make repairs.

Alan, This is very true about being too late. One of the greatest issues is that most buyers and sellers really do not know what to expect from all the players.

I get calls from buyers looking for an inspection that I am too booked to take. I give them a breif tutorial on what they should expect from a home inspector (my opinion of course). I try to arm them with information so they can make a good decision. These are big dollar decision and should not be taken lightly.

I think a good Realtor does the same. 

I have several Realtors rib me if they know I am inspecting the home they are listing, they also state when certain inspectors come in they are on easy street. I do not try to make any extra work for anyone but if you are doing a good job things may come up.

Love all your points. Just like no two agents are alike, no two home inspectors are alike either. If I have a seller that is demanding the top of the market price and I can see issues looming, I may suggest a pre-listing inspection to get those items addressed before listing to make sure that we can obtain the high market price and keep the buyer going towards the closing table. The last thing you want is for a buyer to surprisingly pay their price and then walk away when the inspector gives them 23 reasons NOT to buy. Bursts their bubble, you know?

I look at it this way, the pre-inspection resulted in about half the amount of items to be found by the buyer's inspection, and therefore may have kept the buyer in the deal because not as much showed up.  This also lends to the impression that the home has been in the hands of an owner who took good care of it over the years because certain issues were resolved prior to the buyers' inspection.