Home : Blogs : Jonathan Greene : Real Opinionated--Active Rain Edition

Real Opinionated Gets Reprimanded

I received the following email from a fellow blogger and soon to be Tomato Blog man, Daniel Bates:

…..I noticed in two of your articles that I read that you hinted that Realtors would not show a property if the commission was low or non-existant. You may want to check your Realtor bi-laws, if you are a member, because when you sign that agency contract to represent a buyer you are required to look after THEIR best interest, not YOURS. I know the Tampa market is a rough one, because my sister and brother-in-law own Kingfisher Development there. And I also know you have kids to feed, we all do, but feeding those kids isn’t your clients problem. Showing a FSBO with no kind of stated broker protection isn’t my first choice of activities on a Saturday afternoon either, but if it’s what your client wants it is what they should get. It’s your job to negotiate your pay if the client wants to make an offer. Again, just friendly advice, Realtors have a hard enough time getting people to trust them, you may just want to take a moment and think about the kind of image you are sending out to potential customers…..

Real Opinionated Response:

We welcome dissenting opinions here on Real Opinionated. It’s how we roll. However, I feel as if I need to address this one.

See the Real Opinionated Response here:

Posted by Jonathan Greene on 03/12/2007 11:26 AM

Comments (9)

debate

9 Comments on Real Opinionated Gets Reprimanded

MAR

2007

Jonathon, nice post. Thanks for sharing. Things in the real world don't always match what's on paper. I posted my reply to the original post though.

OK, not only is it an ethical problem but if you are working as an "agent" it is a legal problem as well. If you are working as an agent for the buyer then there is only one way around this, disclosure. You should have a Buyers Broker Agreement clearly stating what you will and won't do. If you have not done this and are eliminating properties based on commission you cold very well have an issue if the buyer pursued it. OR you can work as a Transaction Broker, then the rules change. Play it safe and do it on BBA agreement. The consumer should ALWAYS have the choice of whether or not to work with you and vice versa.

Bryant, you make a great point and I guess I should have mentioned that I do make it clear to my buyers that I won't work for less commission in most cases, unless the perfect house just happens to be listed at less, but that the homes I will be showing them first are the ones that will pay me a full commission. Thanks for pointing that out.

Our buyer agency contracts state that the buyer will pay a commission if I find them a home thats fits certain criteria.

Just disclose to them that they will have to make up the difference in what the other agent is offering and let them decide if its something they want to pursue.

This is one more example of why it's good to have a buyers broker agreement with anyone you take out to show property.The agreement should also address higher commissions and bonuses.

You definetly brought up the elephant in the livingroom. I've heard many different prospectives on this in my area. I appreciate hearing what others are doing and what is a legal and fair way to handle the situation. Better to address the fact than ignore it. Thanks for the post.

That's why I don't understand when buyers don't want to sign a buyer's agency agreement, it only protects them and they get the representation they need. With a buyer's agency agreement the agent cannot skip FSBO's.

Ines

We have a form in the office specifically for FSBO'S, stating exactly what will be paid, by whom. It is a one=time show agreement. Usually, when I have asked a FSBO to go over this agreement, they do.

These are all good ideas that we'll probably implement in our business. I just wanted to stir the pot a little. It's kinda what I do....

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?