I have had the opportunity to read all of the postings about the benefits of using an Exclusive Buyer's Agent in a Real Estate transaction. As a former CEO, I was transferred several times and lived in different parts of the world. I lost over $600,000 when I went to sell two of my homes based on information that was withheld from me at the time of sale. That was one of the compelling reasons why I joined the Real Estate Industry to change the way business is being done. After running a billion dollar organization I developed a keen appreciation for not only business but leading with ethics and fiduciary responsibilities. Dual Agency serves neither the Buyer or the Seller. Designated Dual Agency Only occurs when YOU THE AGENT have a BUYER CLIENT, and that client wants to see a listing that your agency is representing. At that time the Broker will appoint another person to represent the Seller if it is the Buyer Agents Listing. If it is a company listing, the manager or Associate Broker will represent the Seller.
My team works for Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage, owned by NRT. In 2006, NRT did 193 Billion dollars in business, and 318,600 transaction sides. Our organization takes Agency Law very seriously and respectfully disagree that you can only be represented by an Exclusive Buyers Agent. Our team only works with Buyer Clients, negotiate vigorously and ethically, and offer a complete bundling of services such as Title, Financing, Insurance, Home Owner Warranties etc.
I applaud the job that EBA's do. I disagree with the statement Whether they are practicing designated agency or dual agency - those are not good things for the buyer... . The Kiplinger Report in question does state, "get a contract" if you are going to be represented as a buyer client. Every buyer client signs a contract that spells out the responsibilities of the Agent representing them.