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 don't think that saying it's lies that buyer's agents get paid with sales commission or that they sell cooperatively with the seller's agent is minutia. That's a pretty fundamental aspect of the model. I get that people don't like me saying it or maybe don't like the way I say it but it's misinformation to say that it's a lie.
I do not try to be a moral authority on anything and I am always happy to be corrected. Unfortunately many agents here don't like when people challenge what they say. I get that there are egos involved as you pointed out previously but I think correct and clear information is more important than egos.
Okay, I would like to make you happy so here's a correction. I don't recall that anyone has ever accused you of lying.
I appreciate that much of what you post is based upon information that you glean from the NAR website. Here's a hint: don't take everything that you read online as gospel. For all we know, the NAR could have a young intern writing what they put online. Buyer and Seller Agents--if they are doing their jobs correctly--are in an adversarial relationship. They "cooperate" only to the extent that it advances their clients' interests. Or at least that's how it should be. Not all agents are created equal.
Okay, I would like to make you happy so here's a correction. I don't recall that anyone has ever accused you of lying.
I appreciate that much of what you post is based upon information that you glean from the NAR website. Here's a hint: don't take everything that you read online as gospel. For all we know, the NAR could have a young intern writing what they put online. Buyer and Seller Agents--if they are doing their jobs correctly--are in an adversarial relationship. They "cooperate" only to the extent that it advances their clients' interests. Or at least that's how it should be. Not all agents are created equal.
Have a good day. I need to get some work done.
No, your correction is wrong. And this thread went off the rails when my information (consistent with formal NAR info) was called 'lies' and 'absolutely not true'.
post 41 - "lies"
post 48 - "absolutely not true"
An explanation that your official industry website (nar.com) is wrong is a funny one. As is equating formal information published on the official NAR website as just "believing everything you read online".
What's even funnier is that you think that something under a URL that references "nar-doj-settlement" (NAR's settlement with the Department of Justice for antitrust problems) was just thrown up by a young intern! That's a good one. It's information put out there as a result of or required by an antitrust settlement. I bet more than one lawyer had their eyes on that one and I can only imagine the debates over single words. But just say whatever, even if it makes no sense or is completely divorced from reality.
Happy to talk about an hourly model but that's not really relevant to this thread as the OP has not been offered this model, nor is he contemplating it. I'm not sure I follow the point you're trying to make. I'll answer your questions anyway...
I meant folks that get paid by the hour ... like attorneys.
I wouldn't pick a surgeon without knowing she had been a surgeon many years and performed the procedure hundreds of times.
yet, I must trust a real estate agent, who took a $300 course, passed a test and may have 6 months of experience, to pick which data i'm allowed to see to make a decision on a 100s of thousands of dollars purchase?
of COURSE you're not. Just do what the OP is doing - research the agents, speak with them, determine their experience and success level, and then choose.
Now, if the OTHER SIDE of the transaction has hired such an unqualified person - wouldn't that be to your advantage since you've hired a qualified and successful representative?
Well, sorry, but it wasn't true. Be more careful in what you write if you don't want to be corrected.
Does 'careful' mean cross referencing my information with the formal information published by the NAR and providing quotes/references to those sources? I think that just about meets PHD level research methods.
I wonder - trying to give you the benefit of the doubt - if you think "cooperate" means agents on opposing sides get together and collude against the interests of their clients, particularly the buyer.
as to the OP, you have certainly gotten a lot of info, some of it helpful, and some off it indicative of how other consumers feel about the process.
I would make one point about Dual Agency.
I would 100% agree that if you don't feel comfortable having your agent also represent the seller, that you're clear about that with the agent. But if the agent you choose works for a larger firm that has a good-size market share, the dual agency concern can be much MUCH less. If you just say "no dual agency", then you cannot work with your agent on any of their company's listings. Because you are technically the company's client, not the agent's, and the seller is the same. Dual Agency = same brokerage representing both parties. I know all of this has been laid out in the WWREA link MikeJ provided you, but perhaps this is a little different wording that will also help clarify it to you.
I get it if a Buyer, after discussing the workings of Dual Agency says "Hey Bo, I don't want to buy one of your listings" I would gladly get them assigned to another qualified agent with my company (designated agency). But my company is involved in 1 out of every 6 sales in our market, so a simple "no dual agency" would either eliminate a large number of homes or you'd have to have a 2nd agent working for you from another company when you wanted to buy one of my company's listings.
Does 'careful' mean cross referencing my information with the formal information published by the NAR and providing quotes/references to those sources? I think that just about meets PHD level research methods.
Or do I need to be even more careful?
you've now said both "you can advise and sell" and "you can sell but can't advise". That's the initial point of #48, it seems.
you've now said both "you can advise and sell" and "you can sell but can't advise". That's the initial point of #48, it seems.
Sure, a sales person can give advice to a client in the course of trying to sell him something. My point was that you can't assume the role of an advisor and a salesperson at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. The fact that he is trying to sell something precludes him from being a proper advisor.
A point that's well recognized in business.
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.
I don't recall that anyone has ever accused you of lying. 
