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.
Sellers never tell your agent anything you don't want the buyer to know!
I'm an investor and always work with listing agents directly - with just a few questions to the listing agent can find out the motivations of the seller. Most agents - for some reason - can't help but to say more then they should.
Dual agency should by its own definition never be allowed - you can't represent two principles at one time - attorneys would never do that.
If you want to be a transactional facilitator thats one thing but don't call yourself an agent with fiduciary responsiblities to two principles.
I'm sure agents will have opinion on this subject!
Dual agency is clearly defined in North Carolina, and both principals must agree up front to less advice and representation than they would receive if the agent operates as a fiduciary.
I.e., "Fiduciary" and "dual agency" are mutually exclusive.
If some agents forget that, and practice poorly or promote dual agency wrongly, that is not a fault in the law. It is a training or practice fault.
But in North Carolina, as in many other states, all work flows through the Broker-in-Charge's license, and no dual agency would not allow a buyer and seller to do a transaction within one firm. Firms would not be able to actually bring a buyer to one of their own listings with dual agency disallowed by the Seller.
That is an interesting conversation, when a Seller does not want to permit dual agency and I have to explain that I will market but not show the property, and none of the 100+ agents in the firm will show it either.
Having tried this, ONCE, it is even more interesting when there is an open house and the agent in the open house has to tell the visitors to go find a real estate agent to write an offer.
Yes, we could write the offer with disclosure of an unrepresented Buyer, but that approach rules out most of the buying public.
Further...
In North Carolina, we also have "Designated dual agency." This allows two agents, designated by the broker, within the same firm to operate independently as fiduciaries within the transaction.
Not all firms allow Designated Dual Agency. I work at one that does not.
We may, after some poor broker is eviscerated in court and case law is established that clarifies some of the liabilities.
Just like the rest of America, one or two cry babies found the lawyers and the lawyers changed a good thing for America into a great thing for lawyers by destroying the good thing for Americans. The definition of broker is "the bringing of buyers and sellers together." Many times lawyers will represent the "unborn child" when the mother receives severe or fatal injuries. If we were doing our jobs according to definition, real estate agents would not represent or be the agent of either buyer or seller, but we would represent the "unborn child" or in this case the closed deal.
Now to do this would require a complete overhaul of Realtor nation by changing the attitude of professionalism, by requiring a more CPA-like education, testing, and apprentice period. There is no way we can use this forum to discuss this indepth, but why not make the business the best?
Now to do this would require a complete overhaul of Realtor nation by changing the attitude of professionalism, by requiring a more CPA-like education, testing, and apprentice period. There is no way we can use this forum to discuss this indepth, but why not make the business the best?
Who's going to buy your services? If I had a choice between buying the services of someone to represent me versus someone with the stated goal of getting the sale closed at any cost, I'd obviously go for someone to represent my interests. And I don't think that you're going to have much luck signing a contract with the "closed deal".
I know you guys would love to have it so you got to skim 6% off the top of a transaction without any responsibility to anyone involved, but I don't think it is at all realistic. That's assuming you're going to be honest about the services you provide and not just buy some laws which make it a required part of the sale.
Who's going to buy your services? If I had a choice between buying the services of someone to represent me versus someone with the stated goal of getting the sale closed at any cost, I'd obviously go for someone to represent my interests. And I don't think that you're going to have much luck signing a contract with the "closed deal".
I know you guys would love to have it so you got to skim 6% off the top of a transaction without any responsibility to anyone involved, but I don't think it is at all realistic. That's assuming you're going to be honest about the services you provide and not just buy some laws which make it a required part of the sale.
Be careful with the phrase "you guys". It looks like you are saying that all real estate agents, or th majority of us, would be in favor of this "no reprsentation" structure. Not the case at all. I don't have any interest in skimming anything off the top. I have no issues with the fact that I represent my clients, and have a responsibility to work in their interests to earn my fee. And I agree with you, that most consumers would, if asked to think clearly about it, choose to hire someone to represent them and not just try to close the sale at any cost. Of course, the really nice thing is that, in the United States at least, licensees are free to offer a non representation type service, and consumers are free to hire them. The fact that so few do is an indication, in my opinion, that most consumers agree with us.
Be careful with the phrase "you guys". It looks like you are saying that all real estate agents, or th majority of us, would be in favor of this "no reprsentation" structure. Not the case at all.
He was calling for people to back him up - that's who I was talking about with the "you guys" - but sorry if I wasn't clear. I doubted this would be the popular choice for agents, which is why I assumed he'd be competing against the more traditional agents.
Quote:
I don't have any interest in skimming anything off the top. I have no issues with the fact that I represent my clients, and have a responsibility to work in their interests to earn my fee. And I agree with you, that most consumers would, if asked to think clearly about it, choose to hire someone to represent them and not just try to close the sale at any cost. Of course, the really nice thing is that, in the United States at least, licensees are free to offer a non representation type service, and consumers are free to hire them. The fact that so few do is an indication, in my opinion, that most consumers agree with us.
Qouted to reiterate the point. I doubted he was going to get much support from other agents.
Who's going to buy your services? If I had a choice between buying the services of someone to represent me versus someone with the stated goal of getting the sale closed at any cost, I'd obviously go for someone to represent my interests. And I don't think that you're going to have much luck signing a contract with the "closed deal".
I know you guys would love to have it so you got to skim 6% off the top of a transaction without any responsibility to anyone involved, but I don't think it is at all realistic. That's assuming you're going to be honest about the services you provide and not just buy some laws which make it a required part of the sale.
You present a false dilemma regarding dual agency.
The post is so unreal that it reveals more of an agenda than any basis in fact, reality, or real estate practice.
And, since you postured broadly with the "...you guys..." and I was the poster prior to Tom, I'm calling BS on your entire post and the apparent agenda.
The issue of dual agency is a little more involved than the ill-informed canards "...the stated goal of getting the sale closed at any cost," and "...skimming 6% off the top without any responsibility..."
Yes, dual agency can be abused, and that is one reason a great many agents do not seek it. And many will refer out one side of a transaction.
But any agency relationship in any field is subject to abuse, regardless of the law.
All assuming, obviously, there was honesty in your presentation of the BS...
Be careful with the phrase "you guys". It looks like you are saying that all real estate agents, or th majority of us, would be in favor of this "no reprsentation" structure.
Yep, some folks just love to paint an entire group (whether it be by profession, or race, or gender, or whatever common factor) with a broad brush and think that all members of that group are identical rather than human beings with our own individual opinions and differences. I see a lot of that here.
He was calling for people to back him up - that's who I was talking about with the "you guys" - but sorry if I wasn't clear. I doubted this would be the popular choice for agents, which is why I assumed he'd be competing against the more traditional agents.
Qouted to reiterate the point. I doubted he was going to get much support from other agents.
I appreciate the clarification KC. We (real estate agents) sometimes are quick to the defensive when people look like they are painting us all with the brush handed to them by one or two of us who, in our minds, do NOT represent the majority.
I am just trying to get a discussion going about this, so dont anyone take it too seriously, OK?
I dont know how the US real estate business works but in some countries, the seller pays the Estate Agent a fee - which makes him "the master" and maybe he should have the EA working for him, on his side, trying to get the buyer to buy - sort of like a salesman.
It seems to me currently as if the EA tries to sit in the middle and does as little as he can get away with, while charging his commision rate. There are plenty of services he offers to the buyer for free which all just increase the sellers fee to the EA. Although if things changed now, I doubt whether the fees would be reduced if each party had to find their own property agent to represent them.
If the buyer wants advice, them maybe there should be someone he hires for himself to help them fill in forms, give him advice, and bus them around looking at different properties. It all seems backwards - this is probably the biggest purchase in our life and we rely on the advice of some agent that the someone else is paying. Isn't that a conflict of interests?
Maybe it is time for a shake-up in the industry now that the housing market is so bad?
This is a serious topic and should be taken seriously. This as you have learned in the US is called Dual Agency. Many realtors here like to talk like this is illegal in most states here in the US but in fact many states continue to allow RE agents to practically lie, cheat and steal from BOTH buyer and seller aka DUAL AGENCY. I think it's pretty obvious that if Catholic priests (people who are held to a higher level than the average person) can't keep their hands to themselves, I think it is totally NAIVE if not down right AS*-A-9 to think that RE agents are going to have 2 seperate clients best interest an hand! OH PLEASE!!!
Excellent post! Let's do everything we can to protect the innocent.
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.
