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 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.
There're "low" property values in these counties on average, compared to the general US, but I'm talking of range well above their average, < 200K. They told me they work this way in general.
Would you deal with dual agency in this kind of situation?
No.
Quote:
When a real estate agent represents both parties in a real estate transaction, it is what’s known as dual agency. Over the years many buyers and sellers have asked me how dual agency works. They are asking for a good reason – it can be extremely confusing to laymen. Unfortunately, many real estate agents don’t explain it properly either which makes things even more difficult.
Most people recognize the benefits of working with an exceptional real estate agent. You get a representative that fights for your best interests, helping you seek your real estate goals while protecting you from situations that would be detrimental. From finding the perfect house to negotiating the price, negotiating the home inspection and closing the deal, your agent is there for you.
Unfortunately, it is possible to wind up with an agent that is legally prohibited from looking out for you and representing your interests as a fiduciary. With dual agency – when the agent represents both buyer and seller – the agent can’t push for what is best for you or the other client.
Well, my thought was if the prices were very low, it would lend credence to the idea that it's not worth it to the agents to split the commission on, say, a >$50K place. It's still a thought, but I have split plenty of commissions on $200K places and most of us who work in rural areas do think they're worth getting in the car for.
I would try asking a few agents in that area if they would represent you as a buyer's agent. All of them, if there's only a few. I would NOT take the word of one.
Well, my thought was if the prices were very low, it would lend credence to the idea that it's not worth it to the agents to split the commission on, say, a >$50K place. It's still a thought, but I have split plenty of commissions on $200K places and most of us who work in rural areas do think they're worth getting in the car for.
I would try asking a few agents in that area. All of them, if there's only a few. I would NOT take the word of one.
Not only 200K, but 100K was high enough few years ago for most US areas for one-agent comission, including California. This is a low cost rural area.
There're only a couple of agencies in the whole area... and definitely operating in shady mode not telling about this practice upfront (just saying "the listing agent isn't responding"), I had to grill the broker to find out why such silence.
If it's really that way there, then I think the culture of those kinds of insular communities is part of moving there... It's either something you want to be around, or it isn't. It's gonna be part of the decision.
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.
