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.
Here's the stuff that just makes it harder for honest agents, promotes lawsuits, and distrust.
Shame on NAR for looking the other way.
"'I’m not even going to show it to them, to be honest with you,' the real estate agent said. 'I can’t help you to sell something that’s wiping out my profession.'
In recording after recording, Houston real estate agents are heard saying they will not show certain homes to their clients — even though the houses meet all the buyers’ desires."
Here's the stuff that just makes it harder for honest agents, promotes lawsuits, and distrust.
Shame on NAR for looking the other way.
"'I’m not even going to show it to them, to be honest with you,' the real estate agent said. 'I can’t help you to sell something that’s wiping out my profession.'
In recording after recording, Houston real estate agents are heard saying they will not show certain homes to their clients — even though the houses meet all the buyers’ desires."
That's a snippet from an article with no context provided in said article. It's not stated in the article that I recall how/why that conversation occurred or even who was speaking to whom. On the surface it sounds damning but I would like that have had the whole recording released if it's to be judged in the court of public opinion. It was stated in the comments that the listing brokerage offers 0 to the buyers agent. An agent isn't obligated to show any property to any buyer.
It could have been a marketing call from list agent to some buyers agent and that was the buyer agent response.
Another possibility, for example, sometimes I get calls from CUSTOMERS (not clients) off Zillow asking about a piece of cheap land with a low commission. I will usually pass that CUSTOMER the list agent info because it's not worth my time to take on the liability and time commitment for the POSSIBILITY of a $300 check before splits and taxes.
Why should an agent show a customer a property where they'd be potentially working for free?
That's a snippet from an article with no context provided in said article. It's not stated in the article that I recall how/why that conversation occurred or even who was speaking to whom. On the surface it sounds damning but I would like that have had the whole recording released if it's to be judged in the court of public opinion. It was stated in the comments that the listing brokerage offers 0 to the buyers agent. An agent isn't obligated to show any property to any buyer.
It could have been a marketing call from list agent to some buyers agent and that was the buyer agent response.
Another possibility, for example, sometimes I get calls from CUSTOMERS (not clients) off Zillow asking about a piece of cheap land with a low commission. I will usually pass that CUSTOMER the list agent info because it's not worth my time to take on the liability and time commitment for the POSSIBILITY of a $300 check before splits and taxes.
Why should an agent show a customer a property where they'd be potentially working for free?
Consumers would be wise to engage agents who understand finance and are not afraid to bill the client for services.
In a sellers' market, ruling out properties for clients because an agent is afraid to ask to get paid is sign of a very weak agent.
Notice, I said "Clients," too.
A call off Zillow is not a call from a client, but from a customer, as you stated.
We don't owe it to a customer to get them into properties, not at all.
OTOH, I HAVE heard agents say they won't show properties to clients if the fee is low.
And, the quoted text was noted as being representative of conversation after conversation. I suspect there will be more details presented in the court proceedings.
The whole thing is SO messed up, with NAR contributing. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
It's not stated in the article that I recall how/why that conversation occurred or even who was speaking to whom.
Then you must not have listened to all three conversations. It was clear to me that, in each conversation, a REX agent was talking to a buyer's agent and telling the buyer's agent that the buyer's agent would get no commission from REX and would have to add the buyer's agent's commission on top of the offer and get the buyer to pay the commission to the buyer's agent on top of the price of the home.
In each conversation the buyer's agent refused to go that route.
Quote:
Why should an agent show a customer a property where they'd be potentially working for free?
A buyer's agent wouldn't be working for free. The buyer's agent would be charging a fee to the client which would therefore insure that the buyer's agent is actually representing the client's interest rather than the agent's interest in the commission.
Then you must not have listened to all three conversations. It was clear to me that, in each conversation, a REX agent was talking to a buyer's agent and telling the buyer's agent that the buyer's agent would get no commission from REX and would have to add the buyer's agent's commission on top of the offer and get the buyer to pay the commission to the buyer's agent on top of the price of the home.
In each conversation the buyer's agent refused to go that route.
A buyer's agent wouldn't be working for free. The buyer's agent would be charging a fee to the client which would therefore insure that the buyer's agent is actually representing the client's interest rather than the agent's interest in the commission.
Baloney, Jack.
Money does not insure or create integrity. Never does, never will.
An agent, like any other human being, either values integrity and brings it to the table or does neither.
It really IS that simple.
Consumers would be wise to engage agents who understand finance and are not afraid to bill the client for services.
In a sellers' market, ruling out properties for clients because an agent is afraid to ask to get paid is sign of a very weak agent.
Notice, I said "Clients," too.
A call off Zillow is not a call from a client, but from a customer, as you stated.
We don't owe it to a customer to get them into properties, not at all.
OTOH, I HAVE heard agents say they won't show properties to clients if the fee is low.
And, the quoted text was noted as being representative of conversation after conversation. I suspect there will be more details presented in the court proceedings.
The whole thing is SO messed up, with NAR contributing. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
You may very well be correct. I was playing devils advocate. I wish the article had been more informative. When media with-holds part of the conversation it makes me wonder why? Are they pushing an agenda and including the entire conversation hurt their agenda or was a simple omittance they didn't realize mattered?
You may very well be correct. I was playing devils advocate. I wish the article had been more informative. When media with-holds part of the conversation it makes me wonder why? Are they pushing an agenda and including the entire conversation hurt their agenda or was a simple omittance they didn't realize mattered?
I usually default to the latter possibility. I don't think the Chronicle article was slanted, as much as I think it was just a result of poor grasp of the subject matter.
Not many writers really know much about real estate brokerage dynamics, houses, etc.
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 01-21-2021 at 06:21 AM..
I usually default to the latter possibility. I don't think the Chronicle article was slanted, as much as I think it was just a result of poor grasp of the subject matter.
Not many writers really know much about real estate brokerage dynamics, houses, etc.
I agree 100% with this comment. Many articles really don't understand the business so sometimes comments that seem nefarious really aren't that bad, and bad writing can make it seem worse. You just stated it better than I could.
That is the reason I wanted the entire context, because my assumption was the writer doesn't understand the dynamics of the business and therefore isn't qualified to write an article with accurate information based on their own misgivings. Unfortunately, without complete information we are left to speculate, and as everyone can see when we are forced to speculate it can lead to incorrect interpretations based on limited info. There are lots of things that may have happened, but I doubt we get a followup on that particular situation.
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.
