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 currently do not have a RE agent. I went to an open house and would like to put an offer in for the house. I have a relative who is an agent at the RE brokerage that the house is listed with. So the seller's agent and the buyer's agent would be working out of the same RE office. I usually do not prefer to work with RE agents that are cousins or friends. However, in this situation, I feel that it may be to my advantage being that my relative ( RE agent) may have more pull and be able to put my offer through (in case there are other offers).
What are the cons of having the buying and selling agent from the same real estate agency but they are not the same person? Would it be to my advantage? What issues have you guys run into or foresee that I may not.
Regards...
I would not see it as a problem at all if they are independent agents at the same brokerage, but not members of the same team. As independent agents, we don't share any confidential information with other agents in our firm, we don't have access to any files or anything... both of us our working for ourselves, there is no conflict of interest. There is technically dual agency on the part of our Designated Broker or Broker in Charge, who will see both files during the firm's legal review process, but his/her role really will not involve knowledge of confidential information that should compromise that role in most transactions.
I have done several transactions with other brokers in our agency, especially at our first brokerage, because it was the largest brokerages in town... so it would have been silly to avoid listings from our colleagues when shopping with our buyers. In our case, it made for very smooth and amicable transactions because both sides will want to be perceived as reasonable but competent and work nicely together.
Your relative, BTW, will likely have the ability to talk well about you and your offer to a friendly colleague... but he/she won't be able to make up for a lower price. I wouldn't expect to win unless you also hope to be the top bidder. You won't get that much pull.
It could be different in your state but in Florida that would mean your agent can't represent you as a fiduciary unless the seller agrees to forego her brokerage relationship (unlikely). The listing agent will have to transition to a non-fiduciary relationship with the seller unless the seller refuses. If you trust your agent to be fair with you it shouldn't be a problem. It's not an ideal situation but can work if both agents have integrity. Know that an agent serving as a non-fiduciary does not owe you confidentiality, for instance; sharing the top price you told her you'd pay with the other agent.
For a smaller brokerage/firm that essentially acts as a team and, in some cases, where the Broker In Charge is in production.....it's probably not in the client's best interest to have designated-dual-agency in that scenario. Far more "collusion" opportunities/possibilities there.
In a large brokerage/office....shouldn't be a big deal. I am on a team in a large office for a large regional (multi-office) firm. For client's sake I wouldn't be on the opposite side of a transaction with a team-member...but another agent in the office/firm? Still technically designated-dual agency but stronger emphasis on the designated. Technically designated-dual agency if it is an agent at a different office of the same firm too....separate BICs in that scenario also make it less of an issue.
I can't think of any real "pros" in having the buyers/sellers agent at the same brokerage. However if you are signing an agency agreement with an agent, as a buyer or seller, the biggest difference that will be made here is the implications/stipulations that come with allowing or denying dual/designated agency....
If you are a buyer or seller working with an agent from a large firm; if you elect to not[ allow designated agency.... that means that as a buyer your agent cannot show/negotiate on your behalf for a property listed by any agent in that firm. As a seller that means that buyer-clients of other agents from the same firm as your agent will have that same issue (this tends to be the more "problematic" scenario for sellers).
Obviously these terms/rules vary by state so I can only give insight into how it works in my state. YMMV.
It could be different in your state but in Florida that would mean your agent can't represent you as a fiduciary unless the seller agrees to forego her brokerage relationship (unlikely). The listing agent will have to transition to a non-fiduciary relationship with the seller unless the seller refuses. If you trust your agent to be fair with you it shouldn't be a problem. It's not an ideal situation but can work if both agents have integrity. Know that an agent serving as a non-fiduciary does not owe you confidentiality, for instance; sharing the top price you told her you'd pay with the other agent.
Gross. Do you not have Buyer Agency Agreements in FL?
Gross. Do you not have Buyer Agency Agreements in FL?
I've never heard "gross" used to describe our Florida agency rules but I suppose it's accurate. "Weird" works as well. We are presumed, in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, to be transaction brokers. Yes, we do have buyer agency agreements but even if I have a single agent agreement (fiduciary) with my buyer and we offer on a property listed by another agent within my brokerage, my buyer will have to agree for me to transition to transaction broker (non-fiduciary) for that transaction. We don't have any accommodation that would allow both parties to have fiduciary representation within the same brokerage.
You guys have some dual-agency thing or something don't you? Can both principals have a fiduciary on the same transaction within the same brokerage?
You guys have some dual-agency thing or something don't you? Can both principals have a fiduciary on the same transaction within the same brokerage?
In Washington? Yes, absolutely. I have no relationship at all with other agents in our brokerage. Some I've never even met. No different than my relationship with agents anywhere else.
I've never heard "gross" used to describe our Florida agency rules but I suppose it's accurate. "Weird" works as well. We are presumed, in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, to be transaction brokers. Yes, we do have buyer agency agreements but even if I have a single agent agreement (fiduciary) with my buyer and we offer on a property listed by another agent within my brokerage, my buyer will have to agree for me to transition to transaction broker (non-fiduciary) for that transaction. We don't have any accommodation that would allow both parties to have fiduciary representation within the same brokerage.
You guys have some dual-agency thing or something don't you? Can both principals have a fiduciary on the same transaction within the same brokerage?
Yes we have dual agency and designated-dual agency. I personally don't believe in dual agency (ie...the same individual agent somehow owing fiduciary responsibility to both the seller AND the buyer) but designated dual agency... one agent in a firm exclusively represents/owes fiduciary to seller and another agent in the firm exclusively represents/owes fiduciary to the buyer...as long as those agents aren't very close or on the same team....I personally feel that is pretty "legit".
Most of the time a designated-dual-agency situation arises by circumstance and there isn't an actual "designation" (as it is taught in pre-licensing here). IE...an agent has a buyer-client who happens to want to put an offer on a property listed by another agent in the same firm. In that situation both agents are technically automatically in designated-dual agency (IF their clients have agreed to allow such to be the case in their agency agreements)
The "Textbook"/classroom scenario of how they teach designated agency is that an unrepresented buyer just walks into/calls the office, wants to put an offer on a property listed by the firm; and the BIC "designates" an agent to specifically represent them and not discuss anything with the sellers/listing agent. It's not 1995 anymore so that isn't really a thing that happens often.
If the buyer keeps his thoughts and opinions to himself, what difference does it make what type "agency" he has with his agent or what relationship his agent has with another agent? As a person who has bought and sold more than my share of real estate, I never asked my agent to do anything more than present my offers to the selling agent who would then present the offer to his/her client. If the seller accepts my offer, then we have a deal. If the seller rejects my offer, then I'll decide whether I want to offer any more or look elsewhere.
I never have and never will give an agent permission to "negotiate" for me. I'll do my own negotiating. All I want is for the agent to present my offer. What's complicated about that?
If you really do need a buyer's agent, get a stranger, one that you'll have no trouble suing if he/she screws you up.
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.
