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.
My CA buyer's realtor told me recently two things tied to a home about which we were thinking about submitting an offer (and his nudging enticed us to do so):
a) What the listing agent (who sat a few feet away in the same brokerage office) told him was seller's bottom line on a recently listed home. It was about $25K below the listing price of $460.
b) What the listing agent told him was an offer recently-in of 400K, but considered too low, and that it would be countered soon.
While interesting to get these data points, it also made me question the ethics of my own recently engaged buyer's agent - who seemed very seasoned at the outset.
Am I right to question this?
Because he and the listing agent are in the same physical brokerage office in fact, I had to sign an OK to permit dual agency, which also sent up some red flags for me. In Illinois, I don't think this is needed unless the actual agent is representing both seller and buyer.
Your agent has a fiduciary duty to help you get the house at the best price possible, if he knows of the seller's bottom line, his job is to tell you. He should let you decide whether you want to make an offer.
The seller's agent probably shouldn't have disclosed that information, but that's another story.
.
Thanks! I sorta wonder if by signing dual agency acceptance, my agent's fiduciary duty is somehow reduced, since it is the same brokerage office that will handle the deal. Is CA unique in asking for dual agency acceptance, simply because listing and buyer agents are in the same office?
Thanks! I sorta wonder if by signing dual agency acceptance, my agent's fiduciary duty is somehow reduced, since it is the same brokerage office that will handle the deal. Is CA unique in asking for dual agency acceptance, simply because listing and buyer agents are in the same office?
No, CA is not unique in that. Every state has to let clients know if the same broker is representing both sides. Everything is about disclose disclose disclose so neither party can say they were treated unfairly.
As for your agent telling you the seller would go down, that's a thumbs up. Why would you get upset about that? Now, if your agent told the other agent you would pay more than the asking price, unless you gave the ok to say that, then your agent would be in trouble, but to give you bargaining information, you should be happy.
And no, the listing agent probably should not have given your agent that information, but maybe she had permission from the sellers to use that information to entice another offer. You can't know what the seller's instructions to their agent would be.
Someone has breached the owner's confidential information ... an action that could now cost the owner $25K! Yes, that is an unethical breach! It is now up to the owner to decide if they are really willing to go that low ... and also to learn they cannot trust the individual to whom they leaked that information.
My CA buyer's realtor told me recently two things tied to a home about which we were thinking about submitting an offer (and his nudging enticed us to do so):
a) What the listing agent (who sat a few feet away in the same brokerage office) told him was seller's bottom line on a recently listed home. It was about $25K below the listing price of $460.
b) What the listing agent told him was an offer recently-in of 400K, but considered too low, and that it would be countered soon.
While interesting to get these data points, it also made me question the ethics of my own recently engaged buyer's agent - who seemed very seasoned at the outset.
Am I right to question this?
Because he and the listing agent are in the same physical brokerage office in fact, I had to sign an OK to permit dual agency, which also sent up some red flags for me. In Illinois, I don't think this is needed unless the actual agent is representing both seller and buyer.
I don't know how things work in CA, but here in MA you can setup your brokerage two ways:
1. Specific agency - the agent you sign a contract with (and only that agent) plus the broker represent the client.
2. General agency - all agents in the brokerage and the broker represent any and all clients of the office
If a brokerage practices #2 then it doesn't matter if the listing agent and buyer's agent are two different people, it still creates dual agency and both agents legally have a fiduciary duty to both clients. Again, I don't know squat about RE laws in CA, but it sounds like this is the scenario you find yourself in. Otherwise, why would they have asked you to sign the dual agency form?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lederle
Thanks! I sorta wonder if by signing dual agency acceptance, my agent's fiduciary duty is somehow reduced, since it is the same brokerage office that will handle the deal. Is CA unique in asking for dual agency acceptance, simply because listing and buyer agents are in the same office?
Absolutely, if your agent was a dual agent then what he did was 100% unethical and illegal. This is definitely not unique to CA.
Someone has breached the owner's confidential information ... an action that could now cost the owner $25K! Yes, that is an unethical breach! It is now up to the owner to decide if they are really willing to go that low ... and also to learn they cannot trust the individual to whom they leaked that information.
Not necessarily true. If lowball offers are coming in, the seller may have directed the listing agent to let buyers know they won't accept less than $xxx. I've been there as well. If not instructed by the seller, then it should not be disclosed.
My CA buyer's realtor told me recently two things tied to a home about which we were thinking about submitting an offer (and his nudging enticed us to do so):
a) What the listing agent (who sat a few feet away in the same brokerage office) told him was seller's bottom line on a recently listed home. It was about $25K below the listing price of $460.
b) What the listing agent told him was an offer recently-in of 400K, but considered too low, and that it would be countered soon.
While interesting to get these data points, it also made me question the ethics of my own recently engaged buyer's agent - who seemed very seasoned at the outset.
Am I right to question this?
Because he and the listing agent are in the same physical brokerage office in fact, I had to sign an OK to permit dual agency, which also sent up some red flags for me. In Illinois, I don't think this is needed unless the actual agent is representing both seller and buyer.
Offer 425
They counter at 440
You counter back at 430
They counter at 435
Sign the papers
My advice? Go ahead and buy the house if you want it but if you do anything else in real estate in the future, do not hire the seller's agent to represent you.
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.
