If you fire your RE agent .... (percentage, selling a home, buyers, lender)

[Brandon Hoffman]

Originally Posted by olecapt

List for us the advantage to the client of the BBA. It is of course useful in protecting the agent from the "bad" client. However define "bad".

BBA in my judgement favor the agent and mostly screws the client. But let us hear an argument that it is not true. But facts...it is good for the client because... And reality. Not how a BBA should be but how they are...

It can work both ways. SC is written agency state. Without one the buyers agent is actually a subagent of the seller and cannot legally negotiate against the best interest of the seller. It very plainly spells out agent obligation to the buyer (loyalty/confidentially/fiduciary/ reasonable skill and care) from which the buyer has recourse if the agent does not follow. It also spells out dual agency and that the agent told the buyer about it up front and should the situation arise it must be disclosed in writing. It has a clause giving the agent permission to speak with parties involved in the transaction on behalf the buyer (lender/attorney/etc). It's actually pretty buyer heavy because it was meant to protect the buyer with a couple of pro agent clauses. The only way it's pro agent is 1-protects the agent during the length from unscrupulous buyers 2-commits buyer to honesty with buyer agent on material facts.

Very rarely do issues come up with a buyer wanting to fire the brokerage and not being able to.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman

It can work both ways. SC is written agency state. Without one the buyers agent is actually a subagent of the seller and cannot legally negotiate against the best interest of the seller. It very plainly spells out agent obligation to the buyer (loyalty/confidentially/fiduciary/ reasonable skill and care) from which the buyer has recourse if the agent does not follow. It also spells out dual agency and that the agent told the buyer about it up front and should the situation arise it must be disclosed in writing. It has a clause giving the agent permission to speak with parties involved in the transaction on behalf the buyer (lender/attorney/etc). It's actually pretty buyer heavy because it was meant to protect the buyer with a couple of pro agent clauses. The only way it's pro agent is 1-protects the agent during the length from unscrupulous buyers 2-commits buyer to honesty with buyer agent on material facts.

Very rarely do issues come up with a buyer wanting to fire the brokerage and not being able to.

So your defense is basically that it avoids ones agent being a subagent of the listing agent?

Hey we simply don't allow that. YOur agent is your agent...without paperwork...and, by the way, that causes problems too.

And our standard "Duties Owed" appears to provide the same benefits to the buyer without a BBA. Now why is this a good deal for the buyer?

[JustJoy]

Originally Posted by olecapt

You trying to impress everyone with your ability to color things red?

Why not orange?

Or Green?

List for us the advantage to the client of the BBA. It is of course useful in protecting the agent from the "bad" client. However define "bad".

BBA in my judgement favor the agent and mostly screws the client. But let us hear an argument that it is not true. But facts...it is good for the client because... And reality. Not how a BBA should be but how they are...

Not colors of no useful purpose.

And I think we lose maybe one client in twenty working without the BBA net. Probably 10% of those were "bad" clients> Some of the rest did not like how we do it but most simply decided it was not a reasonable time to buy what we had to sell.

The colors were simply so I could make a point at the statements you were making such as buyers were essentially forced into signing buyer agency contracts without knowledge or consent. As well as the fact your statements that a buyer agency contract solely protected the buyer agent - when in reality it was created for the buyer's protection, as well as yes, protect the buyer agent from the 'bad' buyers.

That was an incorrect statement. As i stated it is manditory to present to clients Defininitions of Working relationships so the buyer was aware of the various ways they could be served - in other words, if they just walk into a brokerage and an agent helps them it does not create any fiduciary responsibility between the buyer and the agent (which again is spelled out clearly in the Definitions of Working Relationships). This is to protect a buyer.

Not having a contract in front of me, I'm essentially winging the contents of a buyer agency agreement though one of the posters is a Realtor from your state, so I'm sure she could post a copy. However, the essence is that a buyer agent shall exercise reasonable skill and care for the buyer and reasonable efforts to locate a property as defined by the buyer's criteria.

Benefits to having a dedicated buyer agent are:

1) They work solely to promote and protect the buyers best interest
2) They cannot disclose motivating factors of the buyer including that the buyer would pay more than the list price of different terms than being offered by the seller
3) They must utilize the utmost care and fidelity on behalf of the client
4) Disclosing to buyer any adverse material facts known to broker
5) counseling buyer to any material benefits or risks in the transaction that are known to the broker
6)Advising buyer to obtain expert advise as to material facts about which broker knows but the specifics are beyond the expertise of the broker
7) Seeking a price and terms that are acceptable to buyer
8) cannot disclose any material information about the buyer unless it would constitute fraud or dishonest dealings
9) any facts or suspisions that would stigmatize or psychologically impact the property
10) cannot disclose the buyer's identity without express written permission
11) presenting all offers in a timely manner

As well, if through no fault of the buyer a transaction is not completed, there is no compensation owed to the buyer agent.

There were many buyers where I felt confident that they would not bypass me as their agent and I never required a signed buyer agency contract; however, when dealing with a client (and after 15 years working with attorneys I was pretty good at judging a person's character), if I felt there was a very good chance that they would use me to put in a lot of time, effort and money into locating a property for them - only to have them say 'well, thanks for everything' then go around me, then, yes the only way I would work with them was if there was a buyer agency contract in force. If they didn't want to commit to me, then I didn't accept them as clients.

As well, as another poster commented, 99.9% of all brokers will cancel a contract if there are legitimate (and some even if the reasons are not legitimate reasons). As an owner myself, even when we have done a lot of hard work for a client, whether buyer or seller, if they want out of their contract, I tear it up. There are simply some people that no matter how hard you work for them or how dilligent you are, NOTHING will make them happy.

A good agent depends on referrals and one does not get referrals if they do a crappy job. Consequently, good agents who specialize in buyer representation get a ton of referrals.

[MsFancyPants]

Rather than muddy up this thread, I'll just +1 to OleCapt on everything he wrote!

You, my friend, are a STELLAR agent. Kudos. I repped you.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Now that is really fascinating...and which code provision did the client violate?

Oh! All becomes clear! You evidently think that ethics only exists in the presence of a legal code required by law to obey, rather than standing on its own!

I had a personal code of ethics decades before I became a real estate agent and Realtor and agreed to abide by the Realtor's Code of Ethics.

Ethics (noun: a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual) in and of itself is something entirely apart from being a Realtor, entirely apart from real estate itself - it exists in all human endeavor and it has an impact on each and every one of us no matter whether we're legally held to it or not.

[MsFancyPants]

I agree, HorseLady, and everyone's is DIFFERENT, which is why it became codified. We don't get to decide for others how to behave unless it's a written law or codified or the like (and we've agreed to it). And you also don't get to decide who has to follow "the Code," just because you, as an agent, or a "moral" person who has a personal one in place, follows it.

DISCLAIMER: (The "you" is society, not "you" personally).

I agree with OleCapt (surprise, surprise), buyers have no responsibility to act ethically just b/c agents have a Code. We would all hope that everyone would act ethically, but as I've seen in many threads, that changes dependent on the circumstances...drastically.

[TexasHorseLady]

However, that we have all seen people behave unethically doesn't mean that they aren't behaving unethically - which was my point to olecapt - that he was advocating unethical behavior on the part of the buyer.

And everyone has a moral code in place, by the way - it's the personal rules by which we choose how to behave, even if we don't think about them much. The impact of whatever ethics we hold is not just on those around us, but on ourselves, on the kind of person we become as we go about our daily lives, on how we are perceived by those around us based on how we behave, on how they choose to interact with us (or to interact with us at all). No one escapes that, even if they think they do because there's no codified law holding them to responsible behavior so they don't go to jail.

[MsFancyPants]

That is too deep for me!

But I'll take your word for it!

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Oh! All becomes clear! You evidently think that ethics only exists in the presence of a legal code required by law to obey, rather than standing on its own!

I had a personal code of ethics decades before I became a real estate agent and Realtor and agreed to abide by the Realtor's Code of Ethics.

Ethics (noun: a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual) in and of itself is something entirely apart from being a Realtor, entirely apart from real estate itself - it exists in all human endeavor and it has an impact on each and every one of us no matter whether we're legally held to it or not.

I go for the existence of ethics outside of the NAR COE. And in fact I at times point out that Realtors sometimes are unethical by following standard RE practices designed to avoid liability.

I do not however believe that a client is ethically bound to make disclosures to an RE Agent of facts that might cause the agent trouble over arcane RE procedures. "Procuring Cause" is not covered by any ethical code I know of.

[Brandon Hoffman]

Ole Capt, I simply don't understand your aversion to a buyer agency contract. Do you sign a contract with sellers? Do banks sign a contract with a buyer? Do attorneys sign a contract with clients? Do doctors sign anything prior to surgery? Do clients sign a contract with contractors? Do clients sign contracts with builders? Do clients sign contracts with engineers?

I believe all of those are yes. They spell out each parties duties legally and ethically. All of this is pretty standard. Why do you feel real estate agents should treat buyers differently than anything else?