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.
It's possible to fairly work both ends of the deal, but needs to be done through direct communication between parties. Sometimes talking through what is needed and why creates a more friendly transaction than agents playing "he said" "she said," especially when the agent is only needed to take care of paperwork. That's why I favor facilitator over dual agency.
Some states call agencies working both ends of the deal to be “transaction brokers”. The term makes it clearer that they are handlers, not AGENTS who are assumed to represent one—and only one—party in the transaction. The semantics matter, because they skew assumptions. Both buyers and sellers assume that their agent is working wholly on their behalf.
Dual agency is flat-out shady, and I would recommend people steer clear unless they are experienced in selling and buying, and they know all the “fine print” in their particular contract.
What works best is selecting an ethical and competent agent. Always read their reviews.
Good reviews can be fake. And legit bad reviews are getting removed by places like Google and Yelp all the time...It's not really possible to select a good agent if you're out of the area and don't have a referral through some network.
I would not work with facilitator. I'd rather work with own lawyer and reduce what I pay for a house by that 3%. Facilitator gets paid almost like an agent but doesn't do as much representation and isn't carrying as much responsibility, seems like. (these listing agents forcing dual-agency have no incentive to reduce the fees anyway, since they get away with anything using their monopoly) My home state, I think, doesn't even allow facilitators, so I'd need a lawyer anyway to understand their obligations in another state - not a good deal. The headache that can arise from real estate transaction on unfamiliar turf can't be measured by any common amounts of money paid out to these agents so if it's that much trouble and questioning, it's just not worth it.
Dual agency is a disaster for the typical buyer. You lose all advocacy and no one is representing or caring about your interests. The bottom line is never call the listing agent. Always retain your own buyer’s agent. When at an open house, don’t sign in at all, sign in with a fake name, or sign in as “represented”. Tell the open house agent NOTHING about your circumstances, timing, desires, etc. Anything you tell a seller’s agent can and will be used against you in subsequent negotiations.
Dual agency should be illegal, it is implicitly unethical, regardless of the law or what is allowed. But it is common and most listing agents love double-dealing, double-ending, and collecting double commissions while advocating for no one except the deal itself. Very bad setup.
I came across the area (rural and low population and only several realtors) where every realtor works only on the basis on dual agency.
In other words, if you want to buy or even see a house, it's only the listing agent that can show it to you or work with you as a buyer. If you bring your own buyer's agent (not that you can even find anyone who'd agree to work in this capacity withing a reasonable driving distance), the listing agent most likely won't even let you see the house they listed.
I asked them why are they practicing this and the reply was that the driving distances to properties are high/take up a lot of agent's time to show homes so they think it's not worth working for regular one-agent 3% commission and only makes sense to work for dual commission of 6%.
My reaction is to walk away from this area altogether. Aside from having your buyer's agent being also the listing agent for the property = conflict of interest..... my reason is that there're lots of big extended families in this area who's been living there for centuries, even, and a lot of clannish stuff going on. Under these conditions the listing agent most likely would have some kind of connection to the seller and seller could even have a relative in the position of power in the county, so me being a non-local won't really be represented at all in the case of dual-agency and the seller will get all the representation. I'm not too familiar with state laws, local regulations and some natural risks in the area. There's quite a bit of corruption in the area and I think there's high risk to be outright cheated.
Would you deal with dual agency in this kind of situation?
I think I'd deal with dual agency if, say, I worked with my buyer's agent I liked, on the familiar turf, who's show me a number of properties over some time and then they'd be listing a house I'd be interested in.
I suppose in a "closed area" as this, there's no way to compare if you're actually winding up spending more money this route vs. not.
If on nothing but principle alone, I'd say there's no way dual agency, anywhere, could HONESTLY be impartial to either party. But I'm sure you're focused on the bottom line, which is costs, disclosures, contingencies, and dispute resolution.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't enter a dual-agency agreement even with a new construction home. I just don't feel that I have the teeth I would otherwise as a buyer, if something were to be discovered on inspection, something material not disclosed.
The more times I read it, it sounds increasingly like some weird parallel universe like buying a used car without access to the internet. Too shady. Steer clear.
The more times I read it, it sounds increasingly like some weird parallel universe like buying a used car without access to the internet. Too shady. Steer clear.
Yes, exactly....I especially feel this way after seeing some deeds... even in recent transactions seems like no one heard of section/township/range and the lot boundaries are described sort of like where (long-gone) Uncle Joe likes to have a smoke on a poplar log or where that ol' big tree is on Joe's lot corner. Very old school landmark system dating to 18th century probably and unbelievable overlaps, not to mention deeded 80 acres can turn out to be 40 when they put it all in the assessor's computer. Surveys unheard of seems like. I bet no one wants them anyway considering what they could unearth.
Some states call agencies working both ends of the deal to be “transaction brokers”. The term makes it clearer that they are handlers, not AGENTS who are assumed to represent one—and only one—party in the transaction. The semantics matter, because they skew assumptions. Both buyers and sellers assume that their agent is working wholly on their behalf.
Dual agency is flat-out shady, and I would recommend people steer clear unless they are experienced in selling and buying, and they know all the “fine print” in their particular contract.
I like the "Transaction Broker". At least you know their job, make the deal happen.
No matter what realtors call themselves, that is their job "make the deal happen" or they do not get paid. No deals, no income. Real simple.
I was in sales in the high tech field. While quite different, the bottom line was make sales or be gone.
Yes, exactly....I especially feel this way after seeing some deeds... even in recent transactions seems like no one heard of section/township/range and the lot boundaries are described sort of like where (long-gone) Uncle Joe likes to have a smoke on a poplar log or where that ol' big tree is on Joe's lot corner. Very old school landmark system dating to 18th century probably and unbelievable overlaps, not to mention deeded 80 acres can turn out to be 40 when they put it all in the assessor's computer. Surveys unheard of seems like. I bet no one wants them anyway considering what they could unearth.
And can you imagine the laughing stock the local COURTS are if you try to dispute "the way it's always been done"???
Transaction Broker is legal in Colorado. Dual Agency is not.
How do you know NAR doesn’t support this?
My understanding is that transaction broker is only legal in a half of the states, in the rest it's not. When I say "legal" I mean legal for realtor/broker to act in this capacity (not sure what are the regulations for non-realtors).
It's not legal for realtor to act as transaction broker in California, I believe.
Regarding NAR not supporting facilitators/transaction broker/non-agency - I've been reading an article about this just yesterday, if I find it again, I'll post the link here.
Here's one of the articles: https://www.inman.com/2012/02/17/fro...ncy-a-history/
Quote:
A 2003 bulletin summarizing NAR’s positions for members to consult when talking to the news media — “For the Record” — stated that NAR “does not support the pure non-agency facilitator concept. A facilitator is a person who assists the parties to a real estate transaction in reaching an agreement without being an advocate for the interest of either party. In this type of relationship, the licensee owes the consumer none of the traditional fiduciary duties.”
Quote:
Laws in half of U.S. states — including Florida, Texas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey and Georgia — now allow brokers and agents to limit their legal liability by providing services to consumers in limited- or non-agency roles including “transaction broker,” “facilitator,” and “intermediary.”
From my standpoint, if anything close to regular realtor commission is being charged, this is plain liability evasion with no benefit to regular client, only makes sense for much smaller commission or flat fee.
Last edited by opossum1; 12-11-2019 at 08:01 AM..
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.
Very old school landmark system dating to 18th century probably and unbelievable overlaps, not to mention deeded 80 acres can turn out to be 40 when they put it all in the assessor's computer. Surveys unheard of seems like. I bet no one wants them anyway considering what they could unearth.
