Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we are pretty similar in SC. We have 2 forms of dual agency by definition here: disclosed dual agency and designated agency. Disclosed dual agency means the same agent or team represents both buyer and seller and functions as a mediator since they can't take sides. Designated agency means 2 separate agents under the same broker are involved, 1 repping the buyer and the other repping the seller. In designated agency they both work exclusively for their client. I have no issues with designated agency. I don't love disclosed dual agency.
I would rather work as the only agent in dual agency than as a designated dual agent.
At that, I know what is being told to both parties.
And, in NC, the consumer is a client of the firm, not the agent.
I.e., if there is friction in the transaction, the managing broker/BIC/etc., is going to make a call.
If the agents are a premier agent who books a ton of business with the firm vs. a noob or one who isn't as successful, who gets the call from the boss?
And, most consumers identify with the agent they have vetted and chosen to work with.
When a broker designates an agent for the consumer, and they find they are suddenly handed off and are working with someone they haven't vetted, or even met. It would be reasonable for them to feel less than comfortable.
Suddenly, you have an agent who built relationships with both consumers who is out in the cold, and the consumers are starting over with a new advocate.
I.just.don't.like.it.
And, don't EVEN tell me the original agent gets a referral fee from both designated agents. I just had a nice cherry cobbler nightcap, and I don't want to get queasy before hitting the hay.
I would rather work as the only agent in dual agency than as a designated dual agent....
And, most consumers identify with the agent they have vetted and chosen to work with.
When a broker designates an agent for the consumer, and they find they are suddenly handed off and are working with someone they haven't vetted, or even met. ....
That's not how it usually goes. Actually, as an agent and a BIC for the last 15 years I've never seen that scenario where someone is handed off.
Designated dual agency most commonly occurs when Agent Bob works for XYZ Realty and is working with a buyer. That buyer looks at homes and decides to offer on a home at 123 Main St where Agenty Suzy represents the seller and also works for XYZ Realty. We now have a designated agency situation. Both the buyer and seller are clients of Broker Sarah, but are having their best interests represented by their agents Bob and Suzy.
That's why I'm alright with designated agency. Far more common that way than a client being handed off. Doesn't happen much with with smaller companies, but the larger offices like a KW it will be a much more common thing.
There is so much confusion over dual agency, it is a wise consumer who declines both and wants only full advocacy.
From my understanding.....if a buyer or seller declines dual/designated agency it means that (as a buyer) they cannot be shown listings from that firm or (as a seller) buyers working with agents from that firm cannot submit offers.
Huge disadvantage to buyers and sellers if their agent happens to be with a large firm.
I can't imagine not being able to show FM listings or not allow FM agents/buyers to see my listings. I imagine a BHHSYSU, KW, Remax, HPW, etc agent and client would feel the same way.
I think the biggest confusion as what constitutes designated agency.
For the most part; as long as it isn't the same individual agent representing both a seller and a buyer, or if the two designated agents aren't on the same team or work closely together.....dual agency as "designated" isn't a bad thing and probably isn't something most buyers or sellers would/should elect.
I've been on the receiving end of a couple of referrals where an agent had a buyer client or customer who wanted to see one of their agent's listings....but for which the sellers (wisely) wouldn't allow their listing agent to act as an individual dual agent. (incidentally in both cases....buyer didn't end up purchasing that house anyways)
Tarheel, I completely agree with you. I would not hesitate to represent someone in a transaction with someone else in our firm on the other side. We share NO client information between agents, no confidentiality is breached. Yes, our designated broker will see the file from both sides and is technically a dual agent, but again, shares no confidential information with either agent, even if we've asked him a question about the file. He reviews the contract and corrects issues of agency law and procedure... not how much we should offer or what we think a seller should take or other issues where conflict might occur. He doesn't know answers to that.
That's not how it usually goes. Actually, as an agent and a BIC for the last 15 years I've never seen that scenario where someone is handed off.
Designated dual agency most commonly occurs when Agent Bob works for XYZ Realty and is working with a buyer. That buyer looks at homes and decides to offer on a home at 123 Main St where Agenty Suzy represents the seller and also works for XYZ Realty. We now have a designated agency situation. Both the buyer and seller are clients of Broker Sarah, but are having their best interests represented by their agents Bob and Suzy.
That's why I'm alright with designated agency. Far more common that way than a client being handed off. Doesn't happen much with with smaller companies, but the larger offices like a KW it will be a much more common thing.
I understand your point.
But, out states may differ in regulations.
In NC, in designated dual agency, when an agent has two clients, buyer and seller, and one property, that agent must either work in dual agency or Broker Sarah would have to appoint two agents in designated dual agency, where the clients are then represented by (likely) unknown agents selected by the broker.
While being handed off is less common, it is still a significant issue of risk to a consumer who has probably spent hours vetting and interviewing the agent.
For a buyer or seller, dual agency and designated dual agency and the risks are disincentives to engage an agent from a large firm, if they want assurance of advocacy from an agent they have grown to know and trust.
From my understanding.....if a buyer or seller declines dual/designated agency it means that (as a buyer) they cannot be shown listings from that firm or (as a seller) buyers working with agents from that firm cannot submit offers.
Huge disadvantage to buyers and sellers if their agent happens to be with a large firm.
I can't imagine not being able to show FM listings or not allow FM agents/buyers to see my listings. I imagine a BHHSYSU, KW, Remax, HPW, etc agent and client would feel the same way.
I think the biggest confusion as what constitutes designated agency.
For the most part; as long as it isn't the same individual agent representing both a seller and a buyer, or if the two designated agents aren't on the same team or work closely together.....dual agency as "designated" isn't a bad thing and probably isn't something most buyers or sellers would/should elect.
I've been on the receiving end of a couple of referrals where an agent had a buyer client or customer who wanted to see one of their agent's listings....but for which the sellers (wisely) wouldn't allow their listing agent to act as an individual dual agent. (incidentally in both cases....buyer didn't end up purchasing that house anyways)
1. You support a good point, that a buyer might consider not engaging a firm with a large book of listings, due to the distinct possibility of compromise of their agency relationship.
2. Yes, there is a great deal of confusion regarding Designated Dual Agency. Dropping "Dual" from the title confuses people. "Designated Dual Agency" IS "Dual Agency."
I.e., in NC, clients cannot legitimately accept "Designated Dual Agency" without first accepting "Dual Agency."
It is just two lines to initial, and Dual Agency must be initialed to get to Designated Dual Agency.
So, without clear amendment or addendum to the Listing Agreement and/or the Buyers Agency Agreement, the acceptance of "Dual Agency" to get to "Designated Dual Agency" immediately puts the client at risk of no advocacy at all.
3. (I know it is a typo. ) And, I agree: "...probably isn't something most buyers or sellers would/should elect."
Yup. None of mine do. I highlight "Decline Dual Agency" and strikeout "Designated Dual Agency." Yes, I am a sole operator, so Designated Dual Agency is impossible. I would probably not work at a firm that required Dual Agency.
4. Of course, the agent with a buyer and seller also referred the listing to another broker, too.
Now, confidential client information is in the hands of 4 brokers, instead of two.
1. You support a good point, that a buyer might consider not engaging a firm with a large book of listings, due to the distinct possibility of compromise of their agency relationship.
2. Yes, there is a great deal of confusion regarding Designated Dual Agency. Dropping "Dual" from the title confuses people. "Designated Dual Agency" IS "Dual Agency."
I.e., in NC, clients cannot legitimately accept "Designated Dual Agency" without first accepting "Dual Agency."
It is just two lines to initial, and Dual Agency must be initialed to get to Designated Dual Agency.
So, without clear amendment or addendum to the Listing Agreement and/or the Buyers Agency Agreement, the acceptance of "Dual Agency" to get to "Designated Dual Agency" immediately puts the client at risk of no advocacy at all.
3. (I know it is a typo. ) And, I agree: "...probably isn't something most buyers or sellers would/should elect."
Yup. None of mine do. I highlight "Decline Dual Agency" and strikeout "Designated Dual Agency." Yes, I am a sole operator, so Designated Dual Agency is impossible. I would probably not work at a firm that required Dual Agency.
4. Of course, the agent with a buyer and seller also referred the listing to another broker, too.
Now, confidential client information is in the hands of 4 brokers, instead of two.
What are your thoughts on same-firm-different-office.
Agent from ABC brokerage Main Street office shows/submits offer on listing from ABC borkerage Elm Street office. They don't have the same BIC, don't share on office space....just have the same brokerage tool-kits and logos on your nametag...technically "dual designated agents"
Buyer/Seller checks "Exclusive Representation"..... no showings for them. Not ideal but should be explained as an option for sure and if they elect to do so they certainly can.
Small firms/independent brokers....sure. Absolutely that's the best thing for your client...
Listing agent Bob for (large) ABC brokerage has buyers who are interested in one of his listings two things should happen...
1. He explains to both clients that it is not in their best interests for him to represent both of them in the transaction and plans to refer buyer out (ideally with guidance from BIC) should they decide to pursue that particular property.
AND
2. He explains that while he won't have intimate "in the moment" knowledge from both parties.....if he has been working with the buyers previously he does have more knowledge about them already that puts them at a disadvantage in negotiations even if they do have a different designated agent representing them as buyers in this particular transaction.
It's much more nuanced and situational than can easily be explained with a "do it" or "don't do it" analog.
What are your thoughts on same-firm-different-office.
Agent from ABC brokerage Main Street office shows/submits offer on listing from ABC borkerage Elm Street office. They don't have the same BIC, don't share on office space....just have the same brokerage tool-kits and logos on your nametag...technically "dual designated agents"
Buyer/Seller checks "Exclusive Representation"..... no showings for them. Not ideal but should be explained as an option for sure and if they elect to do so they certainly can.
Small firms/independent brokers....sure. Absolutely that's the best thing for your client...
Listing agent Bob for (large) ABC brokerage has buyers who are interested in one of his listings two things should happen...
1. He explains to both clients that it is not in their best interests for him to represent both of them in the transaction and plans to refer buyer out (ideally with guidance from BIC) should they decide to pursue that particular property.
AND
2. He explains that while he won't have intimate "in the moment" knowledge from both parties.....if he has been working with the buyers previously he does have more knowledge about them already that puts them at a disadvantage in negotiations even if they do have a different designated agent representing them as buyers in this particular transaction.
It's much more nuanced and situational than can easily be explained with a "do it" or "don't do it" analog.
Same firm, different office is interesting.
Major franchises are truly differently owned, separate operations.
A KW Cary agent (for example) is never in dual agency when cooperating with a KW Raleigh agent.
Clean deal. No worries about dual agency.
FM doesn't operate in the same manner, do they? Otherwise you would not have dual agency considerations with other offices.
Listing agent Bob would not have realized "First Substantial Contact" with a WWREA signed by the buyer, or he would seem absolutely to need to dump both parties, not just the buyer. And, a smart BIC surely WOULD want to be involved, in the spirit of Designated Dual Agency regulations, and any signed agency agreements, listing or buying.
Same firm, different office is interesting.
Major franchises are truly differently owned, separate operations.
A KW Cary agent (for example) is never in dual agency when cooperating with a KW Raleigh agent.
Clean deal. No worries about dual agency.
FM doesn't operate in the same manner, do they? Otherwise you would not have dual agency considerations with other offices.
Listing agent Bob would not have realized "First Substantial Contact" with a WWREA signed by the buyer, or he would seem absolutely to need to dump both parties, not just the buyer. And, a smart BIC surely WOULD want to be involved, in the spirit of Designated Dual Agency regulations, and any signed agency agreements, listing or buying.
FM is not franchised but there is still a separate BIC for each office.
I don't see how, for practicing purposes, FM-Durham-office agent representing buyer on FM-Lochmere-office listing would be much different than CBA agent representing buyer for HPW listing or KW Elite to KW preferred etc etc.
A buyer has an agent that owes them fiduciary duty; a seller has the same. The agents don't have the same BIC to answer to or work out of the same building....they just have the same logo on their business cards.
I feel like it would do more harm for a buyer to not be able to get the house they really want that is listed by ABC firm because they have a signed BA agreement with another agent at ABC firm (even if they are at another office location) and have "exclusive representation" marked....than for them to technically be involved in "dual agency" based on agency regs when they do have, for all intents and purposes, exclusive representation and confidentiality in their own agent.
FM is not franchised but there is still a separate BIC for each office.
I don't see how, for practicing purposes, FM-Durham-office agent representing buyer on FM-Lochmere-office listing would be much different than CBA agent representing buyer for HPW listing or KW Elite to KW preferred etc etc.
A buyer has an agent that owes them fiduciary duty; a seller has the same. The agents don't have the same BIC to answer to or work out of the same building....they just have the same logo on their business cards.
I feel like it would do more harm for a buyer to not be able to get the house they really want that is listed by ABC firm because they have a signed BA agreement with another agent at ABC firm (even if they are at another office location) and have "exclusive representation" marked....than for them to technically be involved in "dual agency" based on agency regs when they do have, for all intents and purposes, exclusive representation and confidentiality in their own agent.
But, there IS a practical matter involved. FM has chosen a business structure that requires dual agency for clientele working between offices.
It didn't matter in the 1970's, when there was no advocacy for any buyer, and buyers agency and dual agency did not exist.
It matters today, to comply with current license laws.
FM offices were their own entities for years, but (and I am willing to be corrected) are now bundled into corporate via merger.
As I said, I am less concerned about designated agency when an FM agent in Durham is involved in a transaction with an FM agent in Cary.
But, the confusion over dual agency and designated dual agency, and your implication that an agent could keep one client and work in designated dual agency after referring one out makes for far more intriguing conversation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) And, I agree: "...probably isn't something most buyers or sellers would/should elect."
