Is a Seller's "pre-listing inspection" a good idea?

Lately, I have been recommending to most sellers that they pre-inspect their home prior to putting it on the market.  This often comes with resistance because at first, it doesn't seem like the expense will be recouped on the sale.  I advise that this is a good strategy and could net a seller more in a slow market.  Here are some reasons:

• a pre-inspection catches what the buyer may find during their own inspection so that the seller can repair and/or price the house accordingly from the outset

• by making necessary repairs in advance, the seller can better manage the repairs on their own terms and there is no time constraint to having the job done; the seller can shop around for estimates

• the pre-inspection report can be offered to potential buyers to provide disclosure and evidence of repairs and/or defects that a seller may choose not to repair
  

• a report gives nervous buyers more confidence to submit an offer, especially if the home is older and competes with new construction

• it is less likely that the buyer will "renegotiate" the offer after their own inspection because it is less likely they will find a surprise or a "new" deal breaker; the buyer will likely submit their highest offer at the outset

• a pre-inspection can uncover a huge potential "deal breaker" like toxic mold, termite damage, code violations, etc.  If a buyer discovers this after submitting an offer they are more likely to back out, rather than adjust the price or ask for repairs

• if the first buyer backs out due to a large defect, the seller still has to do the repairs for the next buyer while the house remains on the market longer; possibly needing a further price reduction

• making the repairs after the buyer discovers them does not "add value" after the fact, it only prolongs the sale process
  

I'm sure my colleagues can add more good reasons here....and maybe add any reason why this would not be a good idea?