Either way, I think it's extremely bad form and unprofessional by John Mcgrath to raise and critise a transaction made by his company in a personal blog.
Intuitively plausible, but on reflection I'd have to absolutely disagree, Bluestorm.
Consider -
1. McGrath's personal blog is not private communication by a private figure about private matters, so there is no invasion of privacy involved here, and every propriety in McGrath using his blog to debate commentators' public sentiments on the RE market
2. McGrath has a legitimate business interest in contributing his own sentiments to the debate and responding critically to negative RE sentiments, and could even on the basis of his high public profile be said to have a responsibility to do so in the interests of his industry colleagues
3. His responsibility to act in Steve Keen's best financial interests ended with the completion of that sales transaction (and hence McGrath ceasing to be his agent, or at least certain of his staff members ceasing to act as such)
4. The 'impending market crash' rationale for the sale of Keen's property was widely publicised by Keen, not by McGrath
5. It was never incumbent upon McGrath to accept the legitimacy of that rationale in accepting Keen's commission to act as his agent
6. Keen himself has a self-made high public profile almost entirely due to his very public, very negative commentary on RE market prospects
McGrath did not act 'in bad faith' by accepting the agency commission in the first place despite not accepting Keen's rationale for selling. He has not subsequently betrayed any private information or confidence invested in him by Steve Keen. And he does most certainly have a legitimate interest as a major market player in publicising his reflections on market sentiment, even those expressed by a former client.
It would be entirely different if McGrath had publicly commented on a privately-expressed selling rationale by a non-public individual, i.e. "Joe Unknown told me he was selling because he feared a market correct. What a doofus!", suddenly launching poor unasked Joe into the public spotlight , but that didn't happen here.
So, as I see it, the complaint against McGrath here betrays the application of a double standard. It is acceptable for Keen to publicise his rationale for selling his private residence for his own interests, but it is unacceptable for McGrath to publically reflect on the prudence of that
very public decision in hindsight because it relates among other things to Steve Keen's private interests.
It would be a kindness to let Steve Keen have his cake and eat it too, I know, but I don't know that it's John McGrath's responsibilty to serve it for him.
Certainly not bad enough to be made a laughing stock by a big-mouth RE agent.
