Home : Blogs : Bryant Tutas Broker/REALTOR(R) Tutas Towne Realty, Inc : Broker Bryant's Real Estate Ramblings

Dual Agency. Less loyalty. More pay!

OK, first let's get the important thing out of the way. WE HAVE NO FRIDAY FUNNY VIDEO TODAY! Sorry folks. I've been a very busy Broker this week and have not had time to get my head around doing a video. My bad. We WILL be back next week though.

Now, if you still feel like reading my post today, here goes. This is a follow up to the post I wrote on Wednesday, "Double Sided Transaction Should Require Hazard Pay". I wrote that post to stir up a conversation on Dual Agency. The post is OK. The comments are great. We had a really good discussion on how to handle double sided transactions and whether or not we liked doing them. The responses were varied. My personal opinion is I do not like being involved in a double sided transaction. It makes me uncomfortable. And I'm not even an agent! In Florida, dual agency is illegal and I choose to work as a transaction broker(no agency).

Anyway, one of the commenters, John S. asked this question:

Let's say I am the seller and I hired you to represent me in this situation. Now you come in with your own buyer who is ready to buy.

Do you ask me, or do you tell me, that you are going to be doing a dual agency deal? I assume as the Sller, I would be able to veto it because we already have a contract for you to represent only me, right? What happens if I don't agree to let you represent both sides? If agreement from the Seller is not required, I'd say that's a system that is broken.

John S. is a consumer. He has been reading and commenting on my blog for months now and always has good insight. So his is a direct consumer question and a valid one. What is your answer if and when your Seller ask you this?

Also, If I were a Seller, who hired you as a single agent, to list my house and then you came to me wanting to switch over to a dual agent, which reduces your loyalty position to me, why should I agree to it? And I if did, are you going to lower your commission to compensate me for putting me in this position? I want to sell my house and I hired you to be my agent. That was our agreement. Why are you now asking to change it? Is it just so you can get a larger commission? Where's my benefit as the consumer? Or is dual agency really all about the agent?

Now folks, I know why we do double sided transactions and I know how to do dual agency. What I want to know is what is the benefit to the consumer? How we are protecting the public by allowing dual agency? Isn't protecting the public the reason we are REALTORS(R)? Without us they are screwed....right?

If I were the consumer my answer would be..."No, I do not want you to be a dual agent." As an agent, convince me, the consumer, otherwise. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

Posted by Bryant Tutas Broker/REALTOR(R) Tutas Towne Realty, Inc on 08/17/2007 04:30 PM

Comments (50)

dual agency, agency, opinion

50 Comments on Dual Agency. Less loyalty. More pay!

AUG

2007

Reserved Parking For The Lovely Wife...TLW...ROAR!

Blog Boy...

I don't have time for this right now :)

See ya later tonight :)

TLW...ROAR!

Dual agency, permitted here, is unacceptable to the consumer UNLESS you happen to have a listing that is priced exactly right, your buyer makes a full price offer with which you would agree REGARDLESS, and the seller is completely comfortable with the transaction. IN A PERFECT WORLD. In this one, it's hard to imagine ANY scenario under which a dual agency is to the benefit of the seller or buyer.

Broker Bryant, I don't think that there is any benefit whatsoever to the consumer from dual agency. And I'm disappointed that there is no video today. :( My clients all understand dual agency because I explain it to them at our first meeting, but I've never had one say "yeah that sounds great!"

BB,

I have no problem with representing both sides in a deal. I have done it before and it always seemed to work out for me at least. Mo money..mo money! I just try to be as fair as I can on both sides. If there was a problem then they shouldn't allow it. I think if it is handled correctly you should all work well together. And the best part is there is only one Realtor(R) involved..so if there are mistakes then I am to be blamed and if that is so then I didn't do my job right. I'm not sure all consumers even understand it and I have never been asked to convert after..but one of the first listing appointments I went on..the seller did not want a transaction brokerage relationship...he was looking for single agency. When I sold Real Estate in NY we were single agents so when I got my license here..it was a bit of a surprise at first.

Since this is a Broker Biyant Blog and since Broker Bryant has a significant following and that means that there will probably be a significant number of comments, I'm just going to say:

Defend dual agency? I've heard it all before.

Dual Agency is a contrivance so that buyers will believe that the agent helping them is on their side and will help them. In doing so, that BROKER can avoid paying a co-op out of the office. If the BROKER has an in-house sale, the BROKER collects two sides. Even if two agents are involved with firewalls, the BROKER collects two sides.

I will never be convinced that two agents working for the same BROKER can work as agents for the buyer AND seller without compromising their advice, decisions, recommendations to the buyer or seller without consideration that the BROKER is involved.

Human beings are just not that pure. Even if they have convinced themselves that they can be.

It goes a lot deeper than the contract/price. Many of our serious representations occur over home inspections. I, as a buyer's agent absolutly go for the jugular in home inspection matters. Yet, I've seen so many buyers who were thrown to the wolves by "their agent" in matters of home inspections.

You have to be honest?? The NAR took "fair" out of the COE. Even the NAR knew that you can't be "fair" to two sides when there is a dispute. The best the dual agent can offer is "dispute resolution". That is NOT representation.

The NAR left honest in the COE. Easy to be "honest" when you hear no evil, see no evil, tell no evil.

That doesn't mean that you can't sell your seller's listing. You can sell it to a customer and not mislead the poor buyer into believing that the help and advice they are getting is in their best interest. The poor consumer hasn't a clue about what we do.

Wow great subject.

Now as far as a deal goes there still has to be a meeting of the minds between the 2 parties regardless of who is representing them. If the deal is not agreeable to one or both then it won't happen.

As a sales representative you must facilitate and advise both parties effectively and without bias. Secrets must remain secret. Can it be done? Yes? Could it complicate things? Yes but as long as no undue pressure is exerted on one party for the benefit of the other there is no reason why it can't or shouldn't be allowed.

But can this happen in an imperfect world?

The possiblity of dual agency shoul always be discussed up front, and if one party of the other is not OK with it once disclosed then you cannot go ahead. I did a few back in Boston but RE is very different and attorney's handle the P and S agreement. Here in CA I would not want to be in that position. And I, too, don't see what the benefit would be.

Jeff

I completely agree with you...we don't agree with doing Dual Agency. My E&O Insurance does not even like me to do Dual Agency... That must mean their is significant risk! We are in the business to represent our clients to the best of our ability. Why would we limit ourselves by becoming limited representatives?

Our clients seem to really appreciate the fact that we have integrity.

Rob

OK now we are getting some where.

Lenn, as usual my thoughts exactly. We are kidding ourselves if we think dual agency is a benefit to either seller or buyer. It is not!!

Neal, As a transaction broker for my seller I am still representing my seller albeit in a limited capacity. When I become a transaction broker for both both buyer and seller I am limiting my representation even further. We can do it. I've done it. And the consumer suffers for it. I don't care how pure we think we are. Just the fact that you wrote "Mo money" proves my point. Why is it so hard for us to just pick a side? Why not be a transaction broker or single agent for the seller and have NO relationship with the buyer? You still get "Mo money" but at least it is clear to the buyer that we are not representing them, be it an agency relationship or not.

Jeff, You don't see the benefit because there isn't one. Unless we compensate the seller by reducing the commission for the switch. Use the co-broke to help the deal work or just to put more money in the seller's pocket. At least now there is a trade off in value. Why should the seller pay the same for less?

Wayne, But it is still less. As a salesman, I can put a deal together in a heart beat, that both parties will be perfectly happy with and will be thanking me for. BUT is it as good a deal as it would be if both sides had their own representation? Probably not.

Brian, I think if they really knew what the compromise was in dual agency they wouldn't agree to it. Sorry about the video:)

Laurie, NY IS a perfect world isn't it?

Hey hun, I'll be waiting.

Anther name for Dual Agent is "Defendant", it is permissable here in NH and we just had our board of directors approve for us to go forward to the Legislature too practice Designated Agency and Facilitator. Time will tell but practicing Dual Agency is tough but can be done. It does not 100% benefit the consumer.

As long as you have the "informed consent" of all parties here in NH it is Ok.

Being in CA we are one of those states that does allow dual agency as many know. (I thought there were only about 13 that don't) Personally, I hate it, it's like walking on a tight-rope at best. Have I done it? Yes,..do I prefer not to? Yes. I've even referred others out to another agent just to avoid it. That's about it from me, no doubt many others will have much to say.

Sorry Bryant, cannot defend it. I personally will not represent both the buyer and the seller, BUT I respectfully disagree with Lenn that it shouldn't be done within a brokerage. We have hundreds of agents working within my brokerage. If I represent the seller and another agent working for the same broker represents the buyer, my loyalty is to the seller, theirs is to the buyer. I know legally, there can be differences there, so I won't get in to that, but I do think I can absolutely and fairly represent a client who is also represented by my brokerage.

I know this is probably opening up a can of worms.

Dual Agency???? Who the HECK cares about Dual Agency!!!

We want our Funny Friday Video!!!....Now what am I gonna watch? CHIPS reruns? The Andy Griffith marathon on TV Land?

You need to run over to my Dog Ate Blog article and borrow a few excuses!....

woo woo, I feel like a celebrity today. Thanks, BB

John

No Friday Video? Is NOTHING Sacrid any more? I mean what do we have to look forward to in life now on Fridays? How do we know there will be one next Friday.... I mean I don't want to have to wait ALL WEEK long to find out next Friday that there is no Friday video! Is Bertha Blogger suffering from PMS or WHAT?>?

No argument, no convincing here . . . there's no benefit to the consumer. Being a dual agent is a conflict of interest.

Hi Blogger Boy...or Broker Bryant,

I do not do dual agency. When I take a listing I explain to my sellers that they're hiring me for my experience and ability to negotiate on their behalf. Now, why would they want to give that up?

Yet Illinois law permits it. However, as more consumers become educated to representation, I'd think that a buyer would want an agent who represented him/her and not also the seller.

Seems to me that attorneys don't represent both parties in a divorce.

Rich- you are making me laugh! What is wrong with CHIPS??

Sorry, BB- Rich, is there an Andy Griffith marathon happening? YAY! Just a quickie- when we all worked for the seller (years ago in MOST places) I sold a house, covered the buyer over hot tub repair issues in writing, the repairs weren't done, and she goes to court to sue the seller. My broker at the time said that, due to the responsibility that I had with the seller, appearing in court with the buyer was out of the question. Because it was clearly stated in the contract that the repairs had to take place, the buyer won in court, but would never be a client of mine again- she simply could not understand why I didn't appear with her. Dual agency presents the same avoidable problem.

Bryant, follow you professional gut instinct. There is two choices, what is legal and permitable and what is the humanity thing to do. Many times I will get a designated agent to represent the buyer, regardless of commissions, so I can avoid the one agent dual situation. I would rather be in a dual with each client having their own agent to be safe if I feel that my gut instinct is telling me to not be one agent, under dual for both parties.....but that's just me.

Sometimes, we have to make the ethical gut instinct call on many situations. And it's ok, because the gut decision is always the best decision. Not sure about your state, but CT has dual, buyer, seller and designated agency. Designated agency is when another agent is designated to represent one of the parties in a dual situation to avoid the problem that may arise when it is one agent under dual for both parties.

You'll do the right thing, it sounds like you always do..

Broker Bryant:

I'll answer your question as follows: In the Sun Cities of Arizona, the Company I work for, Ken Meade Realty Inc. has 5 offices and accounts for over one third of listings sold, and one third of buyers represented. It is not inconceivable that the home of the buyers dreams, or the buyer for the seller's home will be represented by a KMR agent. Obviously, dual agency rears its ugly head. I, for one, inoculate my clients by explaining the market share and that dual agency may occur. I tell them up front if it does, there may be limits placed on my ability to represent them because I must than be fair to all parties.

Is it the best possible situation, no, but unavoidable. Most of our clients come to us because they want the best company and trust us to do them right. Since our E&O is so low, I am sure we have done well so far.

Frankly, as an individual, I hate the responsability of a dual agent situation. I appreciate having another agent on the other side, even when the agent works for KMR. It is still dual, but I feel it has fewer opportunities for mistake.

I agree with Rich. When is this serious spell going to be lifted?

Every time we've done both sides of a deal, all have been happy from beginning to end. If there is a eillling buyer and a willing seller, it's usually no problem to represent both at all. Each of their best interests is the same: to get the house and to leave the house. All we do is find that happy middle ground.

So where's the new video? Dust off the counter offer maker and pull the trigger if you have to.

I agree with Lynda. I absolutely hate dual agency, but I have done it. The benefit is that the seller gets their home sold and the buyer gets the home they want. The commission isn't lowered because the agent is now working both sides. If there is an issue, then the seller and the buyer won't agree on the terms. With that being said, we still try to avoid the situation if at all possible..possibly by having the buyer as our customer instead of our client.

Sob....no video. Wo is me (no woo....it's wo tonight)

You know my take...I don't do both sides at the same time. I do represent sellers as well as buyers on different transactions and our office does both.

But if I represent the seller and the buyer is represented by agent in the same office it does create a dual agency. I have never had a problem in that respect. The ones I have worked on the other side of are strict and hard core detail as I. I treat the agent just as I would if from another brokerage.

In my state the seller first and foremost, would have to agree in writing to dual agency. The only way I would, will, could and have sold my own listings is by Seller Sub-Agency. So far my buyers (for my own listings) have not had a problem with my being a Sellers agent. I don't see a problem with this as long as it is DISCLOSED, DISCLOSED and DISCLOSED some more AND IN WRITING.

BB :

So years ago in Oregon when I started selling ( 1988 ) most agents at that time represented only the Seller. We were very much a Buyer Be Ware State. In fact The Earnest money agreements were all drafted with protections for the Seller and almost nothing for the Buyer. By the time single agency came around I had already developed an attitude towards helping both parties.

In the early days I would council the Buyer on questions that they should ask if we encountered a property they liked. That way they too would be able to write an offer that afforded them some protection.

With the advent of single agency, things became a lot more adversarial. Strong agents began taking advantage of the weaker ones who had never developed any skills in representation.

For me I have seen it both ways. I have never had any problems representing both parties. I can go back to every one that I represented over the years where I was a dual agent and I can guarantee you that all parties were happy in there transactions. For being a dual agent is a lot like being a facilitator. You treat all parties honestly and fairly not disclosing any information to the other party and the property stands on its own.

Wow, great discussion!

I'm in agreement with you about dual agency, generally speaking I'm very uncomfortable with it. I agree with Laurie's perfect world scenario and I think that it probably accounts for a very small percentage of the pie. What gets me is how you are supposed to fairly negotiate home inspection issues unless you've done the home inspection before any offers come in and have discussed what if scenarios. Overall very unrealistic.

I miss the video as well.......:(

In a small market such as ours, there would not be any selling going on if we did not have the opportunity to sell our co-workers listings within our office.

Fran

AUG

2007

Bryant, dual representation is legal here in Ontario. It must be fully disclosed and agreed to by all parties. All transactions done with our company representing both the listing and the buying ends are considered multiple representation or dual agency.
In this situation we have what is called 'dual agency-secrets kept' . We do not disclose to either party anything that may jeopardize the negotiating position of the other party.
This is fairly easy to do when there are two different sales representatives involved who both work for my brokerage. The tricky part comes in, like you said, when it is one representative representing both parties. I have done dual agency in the past and I will do it again.

I avoid it at all costs if possible, however there are situations that arise where it is a viable alternative to the other options and works fairly for both parties. There must be full disclosure and agreeance to such a situation between all parties, including signed agreements, and most importantly, both the seller and the buyer must have COMPLETE trust and faith in the representative to be fair and not to disclose the negotiating position of either party to the other.

That being said, if at all possible I represent only one party to the transaction and the other party falls under a 'customer' category, which also must be fully disclosed with a form being signed by the customer and the representative. In all of our transactions here in Ontario, we also must have our client and /or customer read and sign a 'Working with a REALTOR®' form which clearly spells out the types of relationships and the duties and obligations of the representative under each scenario.

B - I am not a fan of dual agency. There is just too much risk involved for the agent and the brokerage.

Blog Boy...

Now see. I told you folks would be disappointed we skipped the video this week.

Now...As far as the duel agency goes...You know how I feel. I'm with ya baby :)

TLW...ROAR!

Good morning all. I'm going to be away all day today but just wanted to check in and touch base. I really appreciate all the great responses. I guess I'm having a hard time expressing myself or really getting to the root of the matter. Let me try again:

I know we can do dual agency. And I know we can treat both parties fairly and get the deal done. I also know that when there are many agents in an office dual agency will raise it's head quite often. And I know we want to be able to double side a transaction not only because it is financially beneficial but it also keeps us in charge of the transaction.

BUT here's my point. Why do we have to do these things under the guise of dual agency? Wouldn't it be better for the consumer if we were transaction brokers, or facilitators, or only representing one side as a client and the other as customer? This is not about double siding a transaction it's about pretending that we can be an agent for two opposing parties.

BB,

Instead of dual agency...how about dual... Bertha/BB. So let me ask you this...when you use dual agency..who represents the buyer...Bertha? and does that mean BBrepresents the seller..there does not seem to be any dual agency there..two different people so you have a good excuse:)

After reading over the comments once again. It appears as if the question of Dual Agency is as much a part of how each State defines Agency as it is to how we aproach it.

The struggle often is how government agencies want to define and regulate. Which often leads to ambiguity in definitions and difficulty in interpreting and practicing for the practitioner.

Try to say that three times quickly.

BB, yes, and I was thinking about that last night after reading a blog somewhere on AA about Transaction brokering. I guess the few times where I have agreed to a dual agency, I have been more of a transaction representative than anything else (just that we don't recognize such a term here in Ontario). I think that would be a much less-ambiguous and more truthful way of doing business and more fair to all parties when both sides want you to represent them.

I do alot of dual agency since I hold a large inventory in a very high turn over area. Is there an advantage... well in my case there can be to both.. I have a dual commission arrangement with my dual agency. If I list your home and sell it myself I reduce the commission by a percentage... so what does that mean... more flexibility to the buyer and seller.

I do belive that when the property is "hot" and I am representing both ends... there is also an advantage there ... having "control" over the tranacation...

Just my 2 cents...

Here is the thing with "dual agency". Even though I am the listing agent and work exclusively with sellers, if anyone of our buyer's agents bring a buyer to the table, we are considered "limited dual agents" (there is no "dual agency" in Idaho). It doesn't matter that the buyer's agents know nothing about the sellers position or that I know nothing about the buyer's position. The fact is, it's considered limited dual agency.

In our listing contracts, we deal with this possibility right up front and explain the options to the sellers. After thousands of listings over the years, we have never had a seller say no to limited dual agency. When it comes right down to it, if our team has a buyer that matches their home, they want their home sold. No we aren't going to refer out a buyer when we have absolutely wonderful buyer's agents right on our team. It pretty much comes down to this: If a seller wants single agency, none of our buyer's agents (nor any of the 100+ brokerage agents) will be showing their property. If a buyer wants single agency, they can not consider any of our listings nor any of our brokerages listings as options to purchase.

Think Neal is right. You on one side, Bertha on the other. There's already video precedent for it.

You are right, it doesn't have to be called "dual agency." When it happens there, that term doesn't necessarily carry a negative at the consumer level, unless they have had a negative experience before. About 11% of our sales on the CA side of our market, and 16% of our NV market are double-end transactions.

Whatever it is the two of you are out for today, lets hope it's in video production.

http://cdnll.img1.imagechef.com/w/070818/sampacd8d67978f76c53.jpg

Great discussion! My contribution: I've done dual a couple of times; I have an "agency discussion" with every buyer before we look at homes. If they are planning on viewing one of my listings, I tell them that it would cause a possible dual agency situation, and if they decide they want to write an offer on that house, they have two options, I can proceed as a dual agent with written permission from them and the sellers, which would mean I would take a step back and "facilitate the transaction" without fully representing either side, but I would continue to hold their (and the sellers') information confidential. Or, we could have another agent step in from my office to be their buyer's agent for this home, and I would represent the seller: this is 'designated agency' in the state of VA, same broker, two agents; dual agency is same broker, same agent. Designated agency then is a form of dual agency, because there is only one brokerage firm involved. The key for me is communication and the clients understanding of who is being represented and at what level.

In terms of the double commission playing a role in how an agent behaves, how is that different than a single side commission? I mean, there is a commission involved in EVERY transaction, you can't let that affect how you represent a client (I'm referencing the first blog post, the comment that an agent that was two months behind on mortgage payments would push harder to represent a dual agency contract). I can't think about what my commission amount is or when I got paid last when I'm working with sellers OR buyers on a transaction, it has no bearing on the offer being made. I think that's the tricky part of dual agency, the perception that an agent is doing it to be greedy, not because the agent happens to have buyers that are the perfect fit for one of their own listings.

(I also take a reduced commission for representing both sides, so would actually be in my financial best interest for a co-op broker to sell my listing, or for me to sell my buyers a listing that is not my own, but that has no bearing on whether I'd show one of my own listings to a buyer client if it fit their needs.)

I feel like I'm rambling, but here's things I see happening that I think are on the slippery slope:

agents not showing listings with a lower co-op commission offered than similar properties, even if the house fits the needs of their buyers;
bonuses offered to buyer's agents above the co-op commission--like they wouldn't show the house otherwise?
bonuses paid to agents selling 'in-house' listings--whose interest is being put first there?

...there are lots of things that go on in our industry that seem to be widely accepted that aren't in the consumer's best interest. As an agent, I try to ALWAYS put my client's interest first, and let them know of any issues that we may encounter along the way. Even if those issues never come up, the client isn't surprised by something after they have committed to working with me.

I'm parking to read more, it's enlightening to see how it's handled in different parts of the country.

Cheers,

Heather

Fran, You're cracking me up:)

Heather, very good comment. I too have never been a fan of bonuses. Maybe if we could just rebate them to the buyer(if it's legal) and let them use it for closing costs.

Gary and Neal, I guess with my multiple personalities I'm always a"dual agent":)

Hi Christina thanks for stopping by and adding to the discussion. It is very interesting to me to see the different opinions and how folks handle it.

Desiree, Your 2 cents was worth at least a nickel or more:)

Jo-Anne, I like transaction brokerage. I think it's something Florida got right when they made dual agency illegal. It's a much better representation of what we do in my opinion.

Herb, After 2 posts and about 100 comments, I guess my conclusion is "it depends". I think I have beat this topic enough.

I know you said this was made up and as I was reading I thought so when I have read other blogs that you are a sellers agent not buyers. I thought the blog was odd. Anyway. I have only done one transaction of dual and it really is not for either side. YOu are just being a paper pusher and asking them what to do and not really giving your opinion and that is not fair to either side. I try not to the the dual.

AUG

2007

Ber-tha! Ber- tha! Ber-tha! (the crowd is chanting wildly)

From Duel Personalities arises Dual Agency Issues. You cannot be all things to all people.

I say that one of your breastes's can be single or both can be dual:)

Now no representation....you decide..or you can include your butt cheeks as an open representation...a you choose it.

Hi BB, I guess I missed this post. A very good one too. I hate this subject by the way. In Texas we can "work both sides" but we can not give advice or opinion to either party.

So what is the point? I am just going to be blunt here...that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Anyone who thinks they can do that honestly and with integrity is just flat out lying to themselves and anyone else. IMO of course.

Now, in regards to Lenn's comment about an Intermediary with appointed agents. (Same Broker, different agents representing each side) That is another story. I do not discuss my business or contracts with anyone in my office anyhow. I do not personally think that is a big deal.

That was a great question by John S. One I think many consumers have and should know the answer to. And...we will have Bertha next week? :)

AUG

2007

I'm not going to "defend" dual agency. I don't feel I need to. It's a legitimate and legal way of doing business in Illinois and involves clear cut rules and regulations that agents are both legally and ethically obligated to follow. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the concept is certainly their prerogative, but in reality, it is a decision made by the parties involved. I prefer not to pass judgement on consumers or agents for their personal decisions regarding representation.

So here are a few facts:

I don't make any more money when I undertake dual agency. I actually make less. I do it when and if it's what my clients want me to do. Key words...clients want.
For sellers, dual agency is discussed at the point of taking the listing agreement (the language is actually written into the standard listing agreement avail through the North Shore-Barrington Assoc. of Realtors). So sellers choose from the very beginning how they would like to be represented, and the pros and cons. Key words...sellers choose.
For buyers, the issue is addressed prior to even showing them a home you have listed. The dual agency disclosure is given to them up front. They can then choose the manner in which they would like to be represented (whether by you as a dual agent, or if they want their own agent or to represent themselves). Key words, again: buyers choose.

Hi all, Thanks for stopping by. Very good comments. I appreciate you guys adding to the discussion. I guess Dula Agency has many pros and cons. The key of course is making sure the consumer understands it and agrees to it. Personally, I'll continue to just pick a side.

BB. I've mentioned to you before that I sell businesses. For the most part I do not co-op. It takes a special skill set to take a bus op sale all the way to closing. My sellers know I don't co-op. They know I will be representing both sides. It is necessary. My feeling is that a business can not be sold unless both sides are happy. We let them back out at any point prior to the assignment of the lease or transfer of a state license (such as Alcoholic Beverage Control or Depaartment of Motor Vehicles). Everybody must be happy. The few times I've been in transactions where there were two agents the situation was "adversarial" and the deals didn't close.

As for being a transaction coordinator instead of an agent, I don't think so. Both sides need counseling and advice. These are major financial transactions not penny ante.

Bill Roberts

AUG

2007

Since we're both Jerseyites, we agree with what Desiree said. If we can pass a saving on to the Seller of our listing, we do but Dual Agency is legal in our state so it's inevidable that it will come up if you're an active agent. We do it but we do it as fairly as possible to all parties involved. If everyone gets what they want and they're happy, where is the harm?

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?