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.
For all you know, OP, the seller had just called and told the agent to get it sold, no matter what it takes. They are tired of it and they want their money, now.
Telling lookers right off the bat makes them look at the house differently. Not, "do I want to spend my money on this one"?, but "hey, this one is a really good bargain, How much do I like the possibility of a low price? Dos that overcome the color of the kitchen?"
Changing "I see a lot of work to be done" to "we can paint and replace the carpet if the price is low enough"
For all you know, OP, the seller had just called and told the agent to get it sold, no matter what it takes. They are tired of it and they want their money, now.
Right - and that's what Silverfall alluded to. Very possible. It just seemed strange to me ATM, is all.
This is not accurate in all states.
In NC, for example, the two agents would be in dual agency and neither principal would have full representation unless both principals allowed designated dual agency in their agency agreements.
Same in SC. Only an agent within the same house can host the open house, and they therefore by extension represent the sellers interest.
However, SF may be correct and the agent sounds like she thinks it's overpriced and just wants to get an offer to take to the owner. It's also quite possible the family said something like "I don't care how you do it, just get it sold as quick as you can for us." But it's also correct that w/o owner consent she would have violated the fiduciary responsibility to the owner.
Either way, I don't agree with what the agent did. My response is usually something more neutral like "I know the owner will take X, but if you want to make an offer I'll present it for you." Even if I know the owner will take less, I still want to do the best I can for them.
Fair enough. We would not be dual agents if we represented a buyer for a listing with another broker at our firm, unless there was an overlapping relationship that would create such a dual agency....
How is that possible since the listings are all technically the Brokers? I guess Dual Agency/Designated Agency is defined by the state and it can be whatever the powers that be decide it to be, but from an technical standpoint that seems like a flawed philosophy.
It may not be what a seller would HOPE FOR, but it's what most sellers are actually going to get from the overwhelming majority of realtors that they hire to sell their house. The realtors are looking out for Number 1... and that isn't the owner of the house.
As a seller, it's best not to reveal anything to your agent that you don't want revealed to every prospective buyer.
So you've interacted with an overwhelming majority of the agents to know this, or a sample large enough to make the declaration? I'm skeptical, but I'm willing to consider your proof and experiences if you'll share them.
Personally, I've closed over 3000 real estate transactions and spoken to thousands more agents in addition, and I find the overwhelming majority do their best to protect their clients interest. I'd guess, in my anecdotal experience, maybe 10-20% share too way much info.
I walk in, there is nobody else there. It's not an area that will attract much attention, even in this market. The realtor greeted me, was pleasant, and started telling me about the house. The roof was done recently, the appliances are new, this was updated when, and so on. All good.
She then says, the price of the house is VERY negotiable. The owner just died, and the family lives in another state, and they are looking for a quick sale. I hadn't even seen the house yet; I was still in the entryway.
To me, this is a mistake. The selling of property is (mostly) a negotiation. I understand the full disclosure bit, but best I know, that extends to latent defects. To me, you don't start off by telling someone that you will likely wind up with a better price than what is listed b/c of X. Am I wrong? If I am missing something, please tell me.
I'm guessing one of the heirs demanded a higher asking price than the rest of the heirs wanted so they agreed to go with his asking price but gave agent instructions, without his knowledge, to encourage buyers to make offers and that there was flexibility on the price. There seems to always be that one heir in these situations that knows more about the market than the agent or the other heirs and generally makes life difficult for everyone.
How is that possible since the listings are all technically the Brokers? I guess Dual Agency/Designated Agency is defined by the state and it can be whatever the powers that be decide it to be, but from an technical standpoint that seems like a flawed philosophy.
I don't see the issue, really. I share no client information at all with any of the other agents at our firm. We all work from home and seldom see each other. We have no shared data or network. Negotiating with one of them would be no different than any other broker in the county. There is no benefit or consequence to working with one of them on a deal over any other agent.
Our designated broker sees offers and contracts once they are signed, and checks them for compliance, but is also not privy to any confidential information unless I specifically ask him for advice on something. We don't pay a split, so he doesn't make more if we sign with him, another agent at the firm, or another agent anywhere else.
Last edited by Diana Holbrook; 11-20-2023 at 10:10 AM..
Reason: clarify one more point.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,243,006 times
Reputation: 57825
It sounds like the agent was desperate to sell it. With commission being a percentage, it's to the realtor's financial benefit to sell for as much as possible. It would be sensible to say that the seller is motivated and open to offers, after the potential buyer shows interest.
I don't see the issue, really. I share no client information at all with any of the other agents at our firm. We all work from home and seldom see each other. We have no shared data or network. Negotiating with one of them would be no different than any other broker in the county. There is no benefit or consequence to working with one of them on a deal over any other agent.
Our designated broker sees offers and contracts once they are signed, and checks them for compliance, but is also not privy to any confidential information unless I specifically ask him for advice on something. We don't pay a split, so he doesn't make more if we sign with him, another agent at the firm, or another agent anywhere else.
Again, sounds like it is a different dynamic based on the state requirements.
In NC, again, I know, the broker is responsible for all interaction with consumers and should have records.
Yeah, no one does it, but that doesn't reduce the responsibility and liability to the brokerage and broker.
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.
