seller's agent told us her highest offer (contingencies, accept, banks)

[Mack Knife]

We have all probably encountered the following situation:

Your buyer agent asks how many offers are in for a house. Answer comes back but rarely does the amount of the highest offer, except, quite often, there is one buyer who the seller agent does tell. Many times it is their "pocket buyer", you know, the buyer that the seller agent has on tap and who has given instructions that should an offer come in for a particular house, that the seller agent call them and give them not only how many offers are in, but the highest offer amount.

Now what none of the agents replying have mentioned, is that while in their eyes (only) this seems to be ethical, notice how none call it fair and equal treatment? Probably because it isn't. Of course, fair and equal probably mean something different in the real estate industry too. The so-called rule makers always decide their behavior is both ethical, fair and equal in application.

More of the great ethics that real estate agents and their industry have managed to define for themselves.

So buyers, feel better now about your buyer agent being paid by the seller agent?

[Mack Knife]

Originally Posted by rjrcm

I beg to differ...

From Article 1 of the Realtor Code of Ethics:

Standard of Practice 1-13
When entering into buyer/tenant agreements, REALTORS® must advise potential clients of:

1. the REALTOR®’s company policies regarding cooperation;
2. the amount of compensation to be paid by the client;
3. the potential for additional or offsetting compensation from other brokers, from the seller or landlord, or from other parties;
4. any potential for the buyer/tenant representative to act as a disclosed dual agent, e.g. listing broker, subagent, landlord’s agent, etc., and
5. the possibility that sellers or sellers' representatives may not treat the existence, terms, or conditions of offers as confidential unless confidentiality is required by law, regulation, or by any confidentiality agreement between the parties. (Adopted 1/93, Renumbered 1/98, Amended 1/06)

Well, finally someone that sees ethics from the perspective of those on the receiving end instead of a CYA affair to be managed and supported at all costs, usually the expense of those on the receiving end.

[manderly6]

I see nothing unethical about informing a buyer that you already have an offer and if the seller so chooses what that offer is. It would actually save a buyer from wasting time making a lower offer.

If that makes me unethical to someone I am good with that.

[Bill Keegan]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

So here we are, real estate agents explaining why it is okay for a seller agent to disclose the offer information to another buyer. The question wasn't what the courts say nor was it what the organization that lobbies for real estate agents said, it is about what the buyer thinks.

If agents listened more to what buyers were asking and replied more with some thinking instead of the typical CYA, you might get more traction.

Why should the SELLER'S AGENT, who has the obligation to his seller to get the best price & terms for that seller, be concerned with what the buyer thinks?

I know that sounds harsh, but look at it objectively. If the sellers agent was concerned with what the buyer wanted, would he be vigorously representing his client, the seller?

[NinaN]

There are people that will find fault with what you do no matter what you do. That's why they are here posting, to make you look bad. Obviously they or a friend/family member/co-worker once had an issue with an agent and therefore we are all unethical and incompetent. It's really hard to use logic in a discussion with someone that doesn't want to discuss something.

[Captain Bill]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

We have all probably encountered the following situation:

Your buyer agent asks how many offers are in for a house. Answer comes back but rarely does the amount of the highest offer, except, quite often, there is one buyer who the seller agent does tell. Many times it is their "pocket buyer", you know, the buyer that the seller agent has on tap and who has given instructions that should an offer come in for a particular house, that the seller agent call them and give them not only how many offers are in, but the highest offer amount.

The listing agent can not give any information on whether there are other offers, or the amount without written instructions from the seller. Then the listing agent uses his/her discretion as to whether it is in the best interest of his "client-the seller", to provide that information. The listing agent is representing the Seller, not the buyer, and has the duty to sell the home at the best price and terms he can negotiate. He can use bluffing tactics, or if he has written permission, can shop the offers.

The courts find that to be legal, ethical, and competitive. What don't you understand about that???

Now what none of the agents replying have mentioned, is that while in their eyes (only) this seems to be ethical, notice how none call it fair and equal treatment?

Neither the listing agent nor the buyers agent treat the other party "equal". The only thing the listing agent or buyers agent owes to the other party is "honesty".

NAR COE Article 1"...The obligationto the client is primary, but it does not relieve Realtors of their obligation to treat all parties honestly..."

[Captain Bill]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjrcm
I beg to differ...

From Article 1 of the Realtor Code of Ethics:

Standard of Practice 1-13
When entering into buyer/tenant agreements, REALTORS® must advise potential clients of:

1. the REALTOR®’s company policies regarding cooperation;
2. the amount of compensation to be paid by the client;
3. the potential for additional or offsetting compensation from other brokers, from the seller or landlord, or from other parties;
4. any potential for the buyer/tenant representative to act as a disclosed dual agent, e.g. listing broker, subagent, landlord’s agent, etc., and
5. the possibility that sellers or sellers' representatives may not treat the existence, terms, or conditions of offers as confidential unless confidentiality is required by law, regulation, or by any confidentiality agreement between the parties. (Adopted 1/93, Renumbered 1/98, Amended 1/06)

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

Well, finally someone that sees ethics from the perspective of those on the receiving end instead of a CYA affair to be managed and supported at all costs, usually the expense of those on the receiving end.

You've been running the NAR ethics down, yet your statement here seems to agree with what the COE is saying in #5. It is saying the same thing as the courts agreed, that the seller does not have to treat the offer as confidential (that he can shop the offer) unless the "parties" (buyer and seller) have a confidentiality agreement.

[Captain Bill]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

I bet agents go through great length to explain that to sellers and buyers before divulging the information. Not.

You do not know that. You are speculating. It is spelled out in the Arizona Agency Disclosure and Election form, and probably in many other state forms also.

Thank goodness the COE and Arizona Real Estate Agency Disclosure and Election Forms don't decide what is ethical and what is not, except as they think it should be. Sorry, but your industry reps and members can't make up ethics amongst yourselves and decide to impose that on others.

The NAR developed the Code of Ethics, and I understand that courts look to those codes in some of the cases.

If the buyer or seller determines your behavior in unethical then it is. You can jump and scream all you want, the buyer or seller can choose to do business with others instead.

Not correct. The Code of Ethics is already written. Buyers and sellers do not determine what is unethical; courts do. Some, like you, may like to think that everything should be the way they see it, but that does not make it right.

The courts have spoken, not just in Arizona, but in other states. You don't want to hear this, but I'll say it again. The sellers agent is obligated to get the best price and terms for his seller. Shopping buyers offers with seller written permission is legal, ethical, and competitive.

I agree on one point. Buyers and sellers can choose to do business with whomever they want.

One more point; agents can also choose what buyers and sellers they want to work with.

[Alpha8207]

Why would it be illegal and unethical to get the highest and best offer for a home?

So it's legal and ethical in an auction situation (where EVERYBODY knows the highest bid) but not in receiving offers for a home not at auction?

As an agent, I propose it would be unethical to do anything BUT solicit for the absolute most money for YOUR CLIENTS investments. It is, in fact, exactly what you are expected both socially and professionally to do.

I suspect "someone" had a buyer who wouldn't step up in a similar situation or called Seller's "bluff" and found it wasn't a bluff.

[Missingatlanta]

Welp I guess the agent wasn't lying because we didn't get the house. Lesson learned for us though. On to the next one.