Different brokers use different listing contracts adapted for their use or a board approved form, but most are similar. My point here is that any listing contract that is used in a state where Buyer Agency or Transaction Licensees are the norm should be re-printed.
Why?
Because we no longer practice sub-agency, or most brokers I know do not want to be responsible for other brokers' agents, so we should remove the sub agency offer of compensation. Secondly, we should remove the offer of any type of compensation to anyone other than the listing broker.
Why?
Sorry to answer a question with a question. Because why should I be paying an agent that works for someone else? Why should the seller compensate the buyer's agent or transaction licensee. There are multiple ways for the buyers agent to be compensated as part of the deal without the seller offering compensation.
This will move us to a true agency representation situation. The seller will complete a listing contract where he is compensating the listing agent/broker. The buyer will sign a buyer agency contract where he will agree how much compensation he will pay the buyers agent for his services.
Too many people are living in ruts. They will throw their hands up and say it cannot be done, we have always done it like this. but it is time for change. If the buyer compensates his agent it removes all concerns if the agent will show For Sale by Owners or if the buyer is interested in New Construction because he will have a contract stating how much he will pay, and the agent will have explained how that compensation can be structured as part of the deal.
The seller meantime, kows his costs and is paying only those people representing him or her in the deal.
It seems so simple, but the arguments will flair because it will mean that agents and brokers will need to explain their value more clearly, but I know from previous blogs and comments that good agents can do that very succinctly.
Comments(0)