In an infamous 1993 "Seinfeld" episode, George Costanza found himself in hot water when he was caught double-dipping a chip -- taking a bite and then dipping the uneaten portion of the chip a second time.

It was hilarious. But not so funny is when someone double-dips in real life. A freelancer, for example, who bills two different clients for the same expenses. Or perhaps a financial professional who places commissioned products into a fee-based account, thereby drawing income from both sources.

Double-dipping also occurs in real estate when an agent lists a house for sale and also lands the eventual buyer. When that happens, the agent retains the entire commission, but often fails to represent the best interests of one side of the transaction or the other. And it's usually the buyer who draws the short end of the stick, according to a new report from the Consumer Federation of America.

The practice is known in the trade as "dual agency." It's banned in eight states, and should be prohibited everywhere, says the report's author, CFA senior fellow Stephen Brobeck. Absent that, he says state regulators should ban listing agents from attempting to persuade sellers to accept a change in the agent's status from fiduciary to facilitator when he or she also finds the buyer.

Dual agency is an oxymoron that "can only be justified when agents greatly reduce their commissions and function as a facilitator with the full knowledge and approval of both buyer and seller," Brobeck said.

According to his report, double-dipping is more prevalent than most people realize. He estimates that roughly 1 in 5 transactions -- about 1 million per year -- occur with a single agent, resulting in consumers being charged "excessive commissions" to the tune of several billion dollars a year.

The rules vary widely from state to state. But generally, a seller lists a house with an agent, who is supposed to represent the seller's interests above all others. The eventual buyer usually deals with another agent, who speaks for the buyer alone. And together, the agents split the commission -- typically 5% or 6% -- down the middle.

Sellers pay the listing agent's commission based on the eventual selling price. So on a $400,000 transaction, the agent's cut is anywhere from $20,000 to $24,000. But the money comes from the buyer, which leads to the age-old real estate chicken-and-egg question: Who really pays the bill?

In the typical deal, half the commission goes to the seller's agent. But when the listing agent also finds the buyer, he or she pockets it all. Some agents will even delay putting the house on the local multiple listing service in hopes of first finding an agent-less buyer.

If the listing agent is successful in finding a buyer, he or she often tries to convince the seller to change the agent's status to that of a facilitator, at which point the agent can no longer advance the seller's best interests. That includes negotiating a higher price or simply offering advice that will materially impact the sale.

But "buyers suffer the greatest harm," Brobeck's report maintains. Because the agent does not represent their interests, either, he or she won't try to negotiate a lower price. Indeed, if the agent fails to change to "facilitator" status, he or she is obligated to advance the seller's interests: bargaining for a higher price and refraining from offering advice to the buyer.

The CFA doesn't necessarily recommend banning double-dipping altogether, though it does want all states to forbid dual agency, which is just one form of the practice. "One agent cannot represent the material interests of both seller and buyer," the report says. "Dual agency aggravates the conflicts of interest inherent in double-dipping."

The organization also wants regulators to block agents from changing their status midstream to dual agent, transaction broker or facilitator. These are the terms used in different states to describe an agent who works in the interest of neither buyer nor seller, instead walking a fine line between the two.

Double-dipping is one of the most controversial practices in residential real estate. While some agents love the idea of working both sides of the fence on the same property, others consider it unethical.

According to a survey by Inman, an agent- and broker-centric news service, about 1 in 4 view it "unacceptable" and 1 in 3 say it is "not desirable." (Full disclosure: I once contributed articles for Inman.) And in a recent Inman article, one agent said dual agency was "akin to sharing an attorney with your soon-to-be ex-spouse."

If you are buying or selling a house in Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Kansas or Vermont, you don't have to worry about dual agency. That's where the practice is prohibited.

But no state outlaws double-dipping. The CFA warns buyers and sellers to try to determine how often an agent double-dips by reviewing his or her profiles on websites like Zillow and Realtor.com. "Aggressive double-dipping by agents is associated with the highest risks and costs from agent conflicts of interest," the group warns.

Sellers also should make it clear to any agent that they want their full and total allegiance throughout the sales process, and refuse to later accept any change in the agent's role. Buyers, on the other hand, should recognize the risks of being a customer of the listing agent -- rather than a client of their own agent.

Having a run-in with the law is one of the quickest ways to disqualify yourself from homeownership.

According to research from a Rice University sociologist, getting arrested just once can keep aspiring owners from buying a house as quickly as their peers.

Using data from the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, assistant professor Brielle Bryan found that millennials who had any form of contact with the criminal justice system were less likely to own a home as quickly, and for as long, as their peers who had no criminal justice contact. That held true regardless of race, education and socioeconomic status.

"It was surprising the see that even low-level contact with the criminal justice system appears to be detrimental to homeownership prospects," she said in a recent edition of Cityscape, a Department of Housing and Urban Development publication.

The nation's 10 largest builders closed on 207,700 houses in 2019, according to Builder, a trade publication. That's nearly a third (30.4%) of the total new-home settlements that year -- and a far cry from 1989, when the national behemoths claimed just an 8.7% share.

D.H. Horton led the list, as it has since 2002, with 58,400 closed contracts -- an 8.6% share of all new-home settlements. Lennar was the second largest, with a 7.5% share.

Moving back home is probably the last thing young adults want to do. But it has its benefits.

Mom may not do your laundry, Dad may ask where you're going whenever you leave the house, and you might have to live under your parents' rules. At the same time, though, you could accumulate enough cash for a down payment on a house of your own -- and leave the nest for good.

It all hinges on whether your folks charge you rent. If they don't, and if you bank what you would have been paying for a one-bedroom apartment, according to an analysis from realtor.com Chief Economist Danielle Hale, you could have enough for a 5% down payment on a typical house in less than a year. Based on the national median rent for a one-bedroom unit ($1,533 a month) and the national median house price ($327,000), it would take just 11 months to save enough for 5% down (just shy of $17,000).

Of course, it will take longer in places where prices are higher. Across the 20 largest metros, it would take an average of 15 months to accumulate a 5% down payment, based on home prices and rent savings in each market. The 11-month scenario holds up in Chicago, Philadelphia and St. Louis, but it could take twice as long -- up to 22 months -- in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego.

It's important for homeowners to keep and maintain accurate financial records for insurance and tax purposes. But if they are lost in a fire, flood or other disaster, it's difficult to prove -- or even estimate -- your losses in order to qualify for loans, grants or other kinds of assistance.

Here are a few steps to take to reconstruct your records:

-- Free transcripts of your federal income tax returns are available at IRS.gov/individuals/get-transcript, or by following the prompts at 800-908-9946.

-- Bank and credit card companies can provide copies of past statements, either online or on paper.

-- Contact the company that handled the closing on your house to obtain a copy of your settlement papers. Ask the appraiser for a copy of his or her report, too.

-- If you've made any improvements to your house, ask the contractor to verify the work and cost. Or ask anyone who's seen the house before and after to provide a written description.

-- Check with your county tax assessor's office for records. Even old, out-of-date files can help.

With a new federal risk-rating system set to begin in October, now might be the time to review your flood insurance coverage. Especially in the states where the cost for National Flood Insurance Program coverage will increase.

A new analysis from ValuePenguin says some 3.8 million homeowners will see their premiums rise under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's new ratings.

FEMA's rate changes promise to correct the problem of policyholders paying rates that don't reflect their true risk levels, says ValuePenguin's Andrew Hurst. But rate increases will be moderate. Existing limits on annual rate hikes are still in effect, so most won't exceed 18%.

The largest proportions of homeowners who will see increases are in Hawaii (87%), Texas (86%), Mississippi (84%), West Virginia (83%), Florida (80%) and Louisiana (80%).

Overall, about 193,000 homeowners will be hit by the highest premium hikes. And about 1.2 million owners will benefit from lower premiums.

You wouldn't know it from the way would-be buyers are fighting over every house that comes on the market, but according to a Bankrate.com survey, millions of people have put off their home searches.

Some said they'll hold off until next year before restarting the hunt. But a significant portion said they're finished with the process indefinitely.

Anyone hoping builders will be putting up enough houses to alleviate the shortage on the market may just as well wish to see the tooth fairy. According to one longtime industry observer, it ain't gonna happen -- at least, "not anytime soon."

The number of actively selling subdivisions is off 30% since 2019, reports Tim Sullivan of Zonda, a marketing and analytical firm that monitors 18,000 active communities throughout the country. And the number of buildable, developed lots is slowly diminishing.

"We're not doing a good job" replacing what is being sold, Sullivan said in a recent Zoom presentation for his clients. "We don't have enough product."

At a time when builders should be rejoicing because they're selling everything they can put up, they are lamenting the fact that they can't put it up fast enough to satisfy the insatiable demand driven by near record-low mortgage rates, the desire for more functional space and the lack of existing houses for sale.

At a new community in a remote suburb of Dallas, for example, a builder recently used a lottery system for a chance to buy one of only 30 houses. Buyers had to be present and approved by the builder-owned mortgage company to win a spot.

When Nav Singh, an agent with HomesUSA, arrived with his client more than an hour before the drawing, about 70 people were already in line. By the time the drawing began, the line had nearly doubled. It was "the craziest thing I have ever seen," he says.

Builders are beset by all kinds of stumbling blocks these days, not just too many buyers. Here's a recap of Sullivan's look at some of them:

-- The Three L's. "Location, location, location" used to be the most important words in housing. But it hardly matters these days in the new-home market. Zonda research shows that 70% of the bestselling communities are 30 miles or more from central business districts.

In Houston, for example, properties within 10 miles of downtown are notching 1.1 sales per month, while those 30-35 miles out are grabbing 4.3 deals monthly.

Nowadays, the three L's stand for lumber, lumber, lumber. Sullivan said he's heard that the cost of complete framing pods is up 150% year-over-year. And the National Association of Home Builders reports that prices have tripled over the last 12 months, adding tens of thousands to the cost of a typical house.

The primary reason: insufficient production due to stay-at-home orders. In many cases, mills have yet to ramp back up to full capacity. Another factor: import duties placed on Canadian lumber during the Trump administration. At current prices, builders are paying about $48,000 for the softwood lumber in an average single-family home.

-- Availability. Prices are up for almost all building products -- gypsum and ready-mix concrete, in particular -- if you can find them. Eighty-six percent of builders told Zonda they are experiencing supply disruptions resulting in significant construction delays. Among the components that are tough to obtain are interior doors, appliances, windows, shingles and cabinets.

-- Higher prices. Zonda research shows 97% of builders have raised prices, half of those by $10,000 or more. But, said the company's chief economist, Ali Wolf, "There's virtually no sticker shock."

Even as builders restrict supply, prices continue to march higher. One reason: The market is supported in large measure by out-of-towners moving from places where housing prices are out of this world. For example, a 2,500-square-foot house that costs $1.16 million in San Francisco or $1.14 million in Los Angeles runs a mere $450,000 in Austin, Texas.

Because many people can work from home and believe they will continue to be able to do so, they are taking their profits and moving to less expensive places. And that's why locals are buying farther and farther out, where the prices are lower.

-- Land. "Builders are paying stupid land prices," Sullivan told his clients, but they almost have to if they want to remain in business. Why? Because the supply of home sites is dwindling rapidly.

Zonda says roadwork has commenced on just 165,000 lots nationwide. Considering that some 500,000 new homes are sold annually, that's not a lot (pun intended).

About a third of builders polled said they expect this will be an issue next year, as well. Said Sullivan: "The under-supply isn't going to go away."

-- Labor. Experienced carpenters, plumbers, electricians and other tradespeople are in short supply. But only 49% of builders said that's a big deal right now, probably because they're beset by other, more pressing problems and because they're not erecting houses as fast as they'd like.

-- Slowing down. To protect against getting too far ahead of themselves, a majority of builders are taking only a specific number of contracts per month. While 9% said it's still business as usual, 17% said they are accepting offers only as new lots become available, and 13% said they are pausing sales or reservations.

At the same time, cancellations are no longer a bugaboo to builders. They're still a four-letter word, but now that word is "good," because it allows builders to re-price to reflect their increased costs.

-- Appraisals. While today's homebuyers are among the most qualified ever -- "They have to be the cream of the crop," said economist Wolf -- 50% of builders complain they are being stymied by valuations that don't jibe with rising prices.

In one North Carolina case, the valuation of a new build that reflected current pricing came in $10,000 lower because the appraiser based the valuation on the same model that sold just three months earlier. Now that builder refuses to quote prices until all the costs are verified.