Right House but Wrong Realtor®

Fantastic post!!! I have never double ended the deal, just for the fear of being sent to court, and not being able to prove who I was actually looking out for. An extra 10K comission check can easily turn into being sued by both the buyers and sellers, ending in well over that in legal fees.

Here is what we are seeing buyers with no loyalty, as the buyer think unless they make the offer with the listing agent they will NOT get the house.  This is true in some cases, and I can name the agents where this applies.  It just seems odd that 90% of your lsitings are sold in house... hmmmmm

As much as a For Sale by Owner, is an unprotected seller, a dual agency buyer has no protection, especially if the seller is a BANK. 

Andrew said exactly well not exactly but it was similiar to what he said. Just do the right thing. I worked too hard for my Real Estate License and I am not about to loose it just because I want both sides of a deal. I would rather refer it to another real estate agent. At least I will get a referral fee. Suggesting this one for a feature.

This is really good advice, Deb. I do not understand why buyer wouldn't hire his own agent, seller pays for it anyway. You are getting FREE support, advice and protection. Suggested.

Deb,

I feel that a lot of buyers don't do their research when it comes to comes to hiring a realtor. Most don't know that their are realtor and agents out here to represent them. I am not saying that realtors are better, just that their is a difference. Having a buyers agent when purchasing a home is very important. As realtors, we need to try to educate the public as best we can. Great post!

What happened at eh end of the blog?  It looks like Greek to me.  Liked the first part.

I don't know.. I list heavy but I also sell a lot of my own listings. If I am working with a buyer and my own listing is perfect for them, why not? If you are a fair and honest transaction broker, you can do this. The listing agent would have the most knowledge about the home and all deals should be struck to be a win win for everyone. I do not ever suggest that a buyer leave their agent for a listing agent but if they happen to be one and the same, it should be fine unless the agent is just there for the $$$ in which case, they should not be a Realtor anyway!

We don't have dual agency as you outlined in Florida, here we call it transaction brokerage, but it means the same thing. It amazes me how many people think they will save money by working with the listing agent, and how many listing agents do not fully/adequately explain how agency works.

How can the consuming public be expected to understand agency and fiduciary when half of the licensed and "trained" agents do not??

If one needs a Code of Ethics to be ethical, the public is doomed. 

No problem selling your own listings if you explain, in great detail to the customer, that you are the agent of and represent the interests of and will advocate for the seller.

None of the rinky-dink machinations of the NAR is going to change human nature that dictates that folks are going to make their own decisions based on their life's experiences.

☔ Deb, Lee and I have been a team for over a decade now and I had to chuckle at your strike-through... :)

But as for dual agency;  I don't have a problem with it and neither have my clients.  They understand what I can and can't do - period.
Pamela

Hello Deb and what a great post ... it sure is "Enlightening" having you back! And if you had posted this to one of my many groups I would have featured it ...

VB ;o)

Fantastically written post! If the consumer still has questions about representation, they didn't actually read it.

Hi Deb - this is an excellent post and there have been a few of them around lately. I get this question from buyers a lot, and these are excellent points. Jeff Dowler and I were talking about it a few days ago, and he sent me the link!! 

What Lenn said . . . and also toss into the mix . . . the "mix-up" between "Listing Agent" and "Selling Agent" -- and the "selling agent" should NOT be confused with the seller's agent.  The Selling Agent is the agent that "sold" the property to the buyers . . . and is more often than not the Buyer's Agent.  The Buyer's Agent is, indeed, the Selling Agent because they are the agent that procured the sale, i.e., brought in the buyer.  In are multiples in my MLS, SOLDS are record with the S/Agt = Selling Agent.

The information on the RMLS is as follows:

I was the Selling Agent . . . Notice how the information does NOT state"Buyer's Agent" when it comes to RECORDING the SALE ON THE RMLS.  The RMLS does not record who "represented" whom in the sale . . . only WHO SOLD IT! 

I agree with your post, but when you refer to the "Selling Agent" as the Listing Agent . . . when I am a "Selling Agent" when I work for Buyers and sell them a property . . .yeah, it's confusing isn't it?!?

And @11 . . . how can there be a "win-win" for everybody when the "transaction broker" (or in Oregon a double-dipper dual agent is called a "Disclosed LIMITED Agent") is prevented from negotiating in ANYONE'S interest.  You can only smile and say nothing and push paper around.  There's no "win-win" if there's no negotiation.  The very concept of "win-win" means that negotiation was performed and terms reached.  No one has to be adversarial when it comes to negotiations, but I sure can't figure out that "win-win" was achieved if there was no negoations.  And transaction brokers can't negotiate, neither can dual agents.