U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-19-2012, 10:07 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
525 posts, read 917,788 times
Reputation: 478

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfall View Post
we have a different interpretation of things. Apparently opening doors and doing showings is the value you think real estate agents in the chicago area have? I think mam would disagree with that.

There is no game here. This is the listing agent who is hired by the seller to sell their home. Period. If the listing agent wants to have that business policy they need to disclose it to potential buyers before they show them the listing.

Potential buyer: "i want to see the house you have listed at 123 main."

listing agent: "do you have an agent?"

buyer: "no, not yet."

agent: "i'm happy to show it to you but just know that if you want to bring in a buyer agent after i show it to you, it is my policy to reduce their compensation offering since i showed the property. Would you still like me to show it to you?"

see? How hard is that to be...egads...upfront and direct with consumers who know diddly squat about procuring cause. If you have a hidden agenda, you are playing a game. If you are upfront and clear about policies, then there is no game. You can have whatever policies you want as a business, but don't stand back and hide it from consumers and other agents. Otherwise you are gamey.

You should read the nar's arbitration cases. Procuring cause has clearly been determined to be more than showing a property. Agents will lose every time in trying to make that claim. Legal precedent has been set.
exactly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-19-2012, 10:15 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
525 posts, read 917,788 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by behindthescreen View Post
This happens alot where I am and is the one of the reasons why I don't like working with buyers anymore. They go off trying to find "deals" and end up messing things up by not being honest or not knowing how things work.

If you have an agent or plan on using your own agent then you must let the listing agent know. Most of the time the listing agent wont show you the house and have your agent make arrangements. I think this is where buyers are sneaky and want full access to homes on the listing agents expense and then go get their cousin or mother in law to write the deal.

They end up messing it all up because now they can't have their own representation after the listing agent showed them the house. You didn't have an agency agreement so when the listing agent showed you the house, they can be entitled to the commission due to procuring cause. I've even seen in the MLS where it states "If we show your buyer the house, we are entitled to full commission" or "If we show your client the house, you will only get a referral fee."

Other agents can argue if this is legal or not but I don't get involved in situations like this. I'd rather let clients like this walk. Too much hassle and deception because they are always trying to cut people out and make deals. Good luck.
See this is the problem we are investors in all sorts of businesses. So we are always looking for businesses (whether it income real estate, restaurants, etc) we are always looking. So I do not (no offense) want a realtor breathing down my back. I actually like looking myself. I don't know of that makes any sense?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 10:16 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
525 posts, read 917,788 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall View Post
Yes. The buyer breaks the chain with the first agent and starts a new chain with the second. It's that new chain that causes procuring cause.



How are they supposed to know how things work when agents don't tell them upfront? Really, do you think procuring cause is intuitive for consumers?



Our MLS doesn't allow conditions. You can only do conditions with a private letter to a brokerage or agent off the MLS. And no...showing a listing isn't procuring cause.



I think a few consumers are deceptive. Most just don't know about procuring cause because no one tells them and it isn't like it is a common term used by the general public. They agents get all mad because they don't educate consumers about how our payment system works.

See...here's the deal guys. I have a buyer agent business practices sheet that every prospect sees. On it, it has my business hours, policies and procedures. I have an entire paragraph dedicated to procuring cause, and guess what...buyers understand when you explain it to them. It really is that simple. So, think about a real estate industry where we explain procuring cause to clients upfront so they understand and can make an informed choice about whether they want to be involved in a commission battle or not. I know...radical.

Have either of you ever explained procuring cause to an unagented buyer over the phone before trying to capture them as a client by claiming procuring cause? Or do you just hope to put so much pressure on them that they cave and become your clients, when they really have a choice?
Exactly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 10:20 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
525 posts, read 917,788 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by yousah View Post
What about the agent that the buyer goes to after having seen the property with the first agent? That's where this nonsense can stop. The second agent is starting up a relationship with a buyer and a property for which another agent already got involved. That second agent is going into this relationship with the knowledge that it's likely to become a commission issue.

I realize that buyers aren't necessarily familiar with how the commission structure works. But the idea of going to one person and using their time, then going to another and leaving the first person out of the transaction is wrong in a common sense way. We all are consumers who receive services from various professionals and are aware of the fact that we don't shaft the first guy after having been provided service. It's different if there is a customer service issue with someone; then it makes sense to go elsewhere.

And Manderly, what exactly do you disagree with? Do you have a problem with people getting paid for providing services?

Every time I hear about the public perception and commissions it's always based upon consumers not wanting to pay for services that they receive. Agents are gready for simply wanting to be paid for their work.
I honestly didn't think I was abusing their time since they are the listing agreement. I as a consumer honestly believe that the listing agents job is to show the property to buyers for the seller, whether the listing agent makes 50% or 100% of the commission.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
19,879 posts, read 36,385,911 times
Reputation: 21308
As a consumer I'd be uncomfortable with someone "assuming" (we all know that that does, correct?) that they're working for me before I've explicitly hired them, because that puts listing agents in a position of inadvertently representing both parties and because that means that I haven't had the opportunity to make a decision as to whether I want to work with them or not (and I wouldn't want someone to work for me as my agent who didn't have a clue how much a buyer's agent does beyond opening doors because if that's what they thought an agent representing me was supposed to do, I'd question their competence). Here, all agents are legally working for the sellers up and until a buyer hires them to represent their interests, usually by signing a buyer's rep agreement that spells out everyone's responsibilities up front so there's less opportunity for confusion. We are also required to present them with a written document explaining how agency works in Texas. (Just read up on this today, as it happens, in an article put out by TAR.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 10:43 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
525 posts, read 917,788 times
Reputation: 478
You see I spoke with the listing agents assistant many times about the property and she never ever asked me I'd I had an agent, which I thought was strange. So from that I really did not think it was a big deal to go get our own agent.

Also I just had a dual agent last year and HATED it. It made me very uncomfortable because I felt like I could not disclose a lot of things to him because he was representing both sides. It made me very paranoid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2012, 06:37 AM
 
3,174 posts, read 2,721,937 times
Reputation: 6477
[Excerpt from an excellent discussion on this very subject]

Rarely does a buyer get a break on price by going directly to the listing agent. That agent is prevented from advocating for the buyer in the deal and cannot divulge what the seller might accept even if the seller has previously agreed to a lower number with another buyer. While the agent technically can't advocate for the seller either, the dynamics are unlikely to ever be in the buyer's favor. Even if the agent agrees to reduce the total commission, both buyer and seller are expecting that savings to land on their side of the settlement statement. The result most often is that the buyer pays more than he would have had he had an advocate on his side of the deal.

A good buyer's agent who is active in the market will almost always have information about a property, a neighborhood or the market in general that can be used to hammer out a better deal for the buyer. Just as important, a good buyer's agent will not allow his client to have excessive exposure in the contract language without that buyer's knowledge. Buyers who decide to eschew their own representation better be familiar with customary division and amount of closing costs, escrow amounts and where it's safer being held, inspection periods, right to cancel, assignability, contract time periods and a few other potentially costly areas. Penny wise, pound foolish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top