WHAT'S WITH THE SUPER-CRITICAL ATTITUDE??...Why Is There Such A Need To Make others Wrong??

Paula: It all makes good reading, and I haven't really thought of it one way or the other. We have all been attacked by an agent who either hasn't read our post in total, or has his/her distinct point of view... You make a good point though.. and of course I am going to search for the blog you mentioned!  It beats doing work! Best, G

Paula, this blog seems to evoke lots of passion.   Maybe a concrete example might help us understand how a double-ended transaction is handled in your state.   (If allowed, "double-ending" certainly isn't a dirty word.)

In NY, when you have a listing and a prospective buyer (without an agent), wants to engage in back-and-forth negotiations, do you provide a disclosure of your representation of the seller, only?     Or, does the listing agent become a facilitator of the transaction and provide disclosure of dual agency, instead?  Or, perhaps you have the choice as to which agency you prefer?

If, for example, the buyer asks "do you think the seller would reduce the price another 5%?" would the listing agent have any ethical problem addressing this question?  

This would certainly help me understand.  

Brian

Paula, so in your example, you represent the seller, only.   Or, you may choose to represent both seller  buyer?    I was asking how your responsibilities would be different under these two arrangements.   

Brian

Paula, I appreciate the time you gave my question.

As an aside, I like and have some very cool memories from the Hamptons.

Brian

I missed all of the blogs referred to.

I have spoken in opposition to dual agency before expressing my opinion that it is not something that I feel demonstrates a maximum interest to either side.  Again that's my opinion.  If it works for someone else more power to them.  We all have choices even when it's within our legal boundaries.  I've also tried to balance the fine line of not criticizing the agents who perform it as I have a lot of respect for some in my office who do (love them as close friends). 

We should all be able to express an opinion in a blog that allows for comments, but not to the point of unprofessionalism and bullying. It is unacceptable.

Sorry I'm late to this post. Came over from Lenn's reblog. I don't comment on blogs that are critical about things that are legal here in California. We obviously work within the rules. Especially dual agency which is legal here. I always explain and have them sign off on what it means when a buyer calls me on my listings to make an offer through me, a broker with my own brokerage. As to an "expert"? That's an overused word unless it is regulated somehow. (No, no I don't recommend that!) Since you can't be an expert in everything, I believe you are limiting yourself if you only go after one kind of client.

99.9% of buyers who have the process and issues expained correctly will choose to be represented.  Why would any buyer choose not to be?  It is in the explanation I would guess.  If an agent says "don't worry I will get the deal done" in stead of "everything you tell me if I represent the seller I have to reveal to the seller by law - so if you tell me that you are willing to increase your offer to such and such you need to know that I MUST disclose that to the seller and maybe before you want me to"

Paula - I have no problem with a buyer choosing whom they want to represent them.  It's all about choices that's why buyer agency came into affect.

I think Miriam just explained it best.  Most buyers who understand fudiciary duty and agency will in most cases choose their own representation.  For the buyers who do not, I don't begrudge them, that's on them.

Who in the below situation has the most to lose?  And in what order?   My guess:

#1  Buyer representing themselves in a FSBO

#2  Buyer allowing listing agent to represent them

#3  Buyer having their own buyer representation  (my opinion this person is most likely to benefit the most in the home buying scenario)

I like Brian's question (unanswered)- if the buyer asks if the seller would reduce the price by 5%, and you (as the listing agent) know that they would, how do you respond?  Especially if you're also aware that the buyer will purchase at full price?

If the buyer is represented the offer goes in at 5% under, and is accepted; without, they pay full price.

It's so much less complicated when each side has their own representation.  Or, none at all- a lawyer at NYSAR got furious when I suggested that NY should just have us all be transaction brokers to avoid the nonsense that they've forced on all of us with an agency disclosure that's so frequently misunderstood by Realtors, and consumers.

Paula, my first comment #71 was agreeing with you about the critical agent when expressing an opposing opinion. My 2nd comment was in response to your question you posed to me in your comment to me #73. 

In your comment #77 you say that my idea is that buyers should all have representation whether they want it or not. 

The FIRST line of my comment #75 says "I have no problem with a buyer choosing whom they want to represent them."  I don't know how my agreeing with you about critical agents while acknowledging our differences turned into this. 

Paula, you seem to be super critical of some of the comments!

I didn't suggest that buyers should have representation "whether they want it or not", either, but you're correct, Paula- your post was derailed due to some good comments.  Not sure that's a bad thing!

What I state is that buyers, if aware that the listing agent is full on board with the seller without a life preserver for the buyer, should be made aware that this is the way it is when buying from any Realtor legally representing the seller only, because that is the listing agents job- to represent the seller only.

As for the super critical agent, not sure I've ever met one.