listing agent vs. buyer agent

[Zira]

If the listing agent of a house showed it to me can I still get a buyer agent to help me with the buying process of said house? Or, do I have to stick with the listing agent who showed the house?

Thank you.

[Codythebest]

You can (and should) get a buyer's agent unless you signed some agreement with the listing agent...
You won't pay anything anyway so it's free help.

[REbuyersgroup]

There is nothing preventing you for having your own agent to represent you and it will not cost you anything. Highly recommended, but you will get the evil eye from the other agent the next time you bring in your "buyers agent".

Remember, you just cut their commission in half. Ouch...

[Hannigan]

You can (and should) get a buyer's agent unless you signed some agreement with the listing agent...
You won't pay anything anyway so it's free help. I'm curious. Do you advise potential buyers of your own listings to to seek an outside buyer's agent?

[IggysListing]

In NC we are required to go over the agency relationships upon first
significant contact. I would explain this in detail and even if I practiced
dual agency, I would make sure the client had a comfort level.

[Honeycomb Properties]

Same is true here in Indiana Iggy. I explain to all potential buyers and sellers that in a dual agency situation they can lose negotiation powers because I may know information about the other party (and them) that I can not disclose.

Even though you don't have to get another agent- the selling agent should treat you in a fair and ethical manner- it would be good for you to have a professional in your corner looking out for your best interest. The seller's agent is just that- the seller's agent.

And in most cases you can get a buyer's agent at NO COST to you.

WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID- there is the fact of procuring cause. The selling agent can try to make the argument that they were the reason you found and purchased the property. In real estate, procuring cause is normally the basis in which an agent earns the commission by law. It doesn't effect you much as a buyer unless it makes the transaction turn ugly, but the buyer's agent you choose could end up working for nothing.

[Hannigan]

... I explain to all potential buyers and sellers that in a dual agency situation they can lose negotiation powers because I may know information about the other party (and them) that I can not disclose. Can you explain how this (in itself) compromises the buyer's negotiating powers? How does the buyer gain negotiating clout by obtaining an exclusive buyer agent?

[Codythebest]

I'm curious. Do you advise potential buyers of your own listings to to seek an outside buyer's agent?

Yes, sometimes. Mainly when I feel the buyers uncomfortable by dealing with me as seller's agent. Fairness first, money second...
If they feel ok, I go to transaction broker unless my seller refuses.
I never go dual agency for obvious reason...

[aprazma]

Can you explain how this (in itself) compromises the buyer's negotiating powers? How does the buyer gain negotiating clout by obtaining an exclusive buyer agent?

I can think of a few reasons:

1. A seller's agent is highly unlikely to disclose any information (aside from legally required disclosures) about the property or the contract terms that is unfavorable to his seller.

2. The seller's agent is not going to provide market data on comparable sales to the buyer or highlight how the buyer could save money by making an offer below list price.

3. The seller's agent is not going to be able to advise you on a negotiating strategy or opening offer.

4. The seller's agent is not going to advocate your interests when it comes time to renegotiate price or request repairs to be performed when property defects are found during inspection.

[Hannigan]

Yes, sometimes. Mainly when I feel the buyers uncomfortable by dealing with me as seller's agent. Fairness first, money second...
If they feel ok, I go to transaction broker unless my seller refuses.
I never go dual agency for obvious reason... Transaction broker?

[Hannigan]

I can think of a few reasons:

1. A seller's agent is highly unlikely to disclose any information (aside from legally required disclosures) about the property or the contract terms that is unfavorable to his seller.

2. The seller's agent is not going to provide market data on comparable sales to the buyer or highlight how the buyer could save money by making an offer below list price.

3. The seller's agent is not going to be able to advise you on a negotiating strategy or opening offer.

4. The seller's agent is not going to advocate your interests when it comes time to renegotiate price or repairs when property defects are found during inspection.

1) Legal disclosures cover anything materially relevant to the value of the property, right?

2) Why wouldn't a seller's agent provide comparable sales data to a prospective buyer?

3) Yes. As a dual agent, I can't and don't provide guidance below asking price without specific permission of the seller. I tell this to prospective buyers, and I find it to be one of the easier aspects of dual agency to convey.

4) A seller's agent typically has a huge personal financial incentive to iron out escrow issues successfully as a dual agent. Sometimes they chip-in for repairs rather than give up the dual commission.

[Honeycomb Properties]

I believe by "Transaction Broker" he means that he removes most or all the advisory role from his relationships and tries to complete the transaction in a neutral fashion.

I have never performed dual agency, I don't believe it's permitted when dealing with attorneys, but in Real Estate- it is permitted provided there is disclosure and written consent.

[Honeycomb Properties]

3) Yes. As a dual agent, I can't and don't provide guidance below asking price without specific permission of the seller. I tell this to prospective buyers, and I find it to be one of the easier aspects of dual agency to convey.

4) A seller's agent typically has a huge personal financial incentive to iron out escrow issues successfully as a dual agent. Sometimes they chip-in for repairs rather than give up the dual commission.

Here are the reasons you stated yourself that a buyer may want or not want to obtain their own negotiator.

Specifically your response on #3. The responsibility for negotiation is placed back to the buyer (and seller), thus making your job easier. And #4 states that your consideration for your own financial benefit is at the forefront of your logic. There may also be potential benefits to both the buyers and sellers, I agree, but there could also be potential downfalls.

There is a difference between treating someone as a client and someone as a customer.

[Codythebest]

Transaction broker?

A transaction broker is abroker who works for the transaction, neutral to buyers and sellers. He does what sellers and buyers say to do and make it happen.

[Hannigan]

Here are the reasons you stated yourself that a buyer may want or not want to obtain their own negotiator.

Specifically your response on #3. The responsibility for negotiation is placed back to the buyer (and seller), thus making your job easier. And #4 states that your consideration for your own financial benefit is at the forefront of your logic. There may also be potential benefits to both the buyers and sellers, I agree, but there could also be potential downfalls.

There is a difference between treating someone as a client and someone as a customer. Ultimately, the responsibility for negotiation always lies with the seller and buyer. Dual agency sometimes makes my job easier, sometimes makes it harder--it depends on the buyer, seller and agents involved. I can't think of any hard advice to offer prospective buyers about dual-agency. There are too many variables. What I see in the industry is that most brokerages will gladly represent buyers on listed properties, and enthusiastically provide buyer-only agency as well. I think we both know what logic is at the forefront of this.

[Hannigan]

A transaction broker is abroker who works for the transaction, neutral to buyers and sellers. He does what sellers and buyers say to do and make it happen. Thanks. I haven't run into that in California, and I'm not sure if this state allows price negotiation on behalf of a paying client/customer without agency representation of some sort.

[Codythebest]

Thanks. I haven't run into that in California, and I'm not sure if this state allows price negotiation on behalf of a paying client/customer without agency representation of some sort.

You don't negociate price (or anything for that matter). Buyer says $XXX and you present to seller. Seller says no but yes for $YYY. You present to buyer. Buyer says yes at $YYY with limitation clause of $ZZZ...and so on until you have a deal (or not)...You stay neutral...

[Hannigan]

You don't negociate price (or anything for that matter). Buyer says $XXX and you present to seller. Seller says no but yes for $YYY. You present to buyer. Buyer says yes at $YYY with limitation clause of $ZZZ...and so on until you have a deal (or not)...You stay neutral... I think I know what you mean, but I doubt if an agent here can write up an offer (regardless how the price is arrived at) on behalf of a paying entity without declaring agency representation. I think title companies provide quiet guidance to FSBO principals, but not in an official capacity.

[Codythebest]

I think I know what you mean, but I doubt if an agent here can write up an offer (regardless how the price is arrived at) on behalf of a paying entity without declaring agency representation. I think title companies provide quiet guidance to FSBO principals, but not in an official capacity.

You are declaring agency representation. The first document is a Transaction Broker representation...

[Hannigan]

You are declaring agency representation. The first document is a Transaction Broker representation... I'm guessing a "neutral" transaction broker isn't an option here.

[Codythebest]

I'm guessing a "neutral" transaction broker isn't an option here.

But if you have buyer and seller, how can you fairly deal for both?
Can you fairly play chess on each side?

[TahoeResource]

You have the right to hire a buyer's agent to represent your interests, but be careful because the listing agent could claim that they were the procuring cause of the sale (since they showed you the property first) and claim a broker fee from the seller. The best way to avoid that is to have a real estate agent that you can call to show you or inquire about listings that you are interested in...

[Hannigan]

But if you have buyer and seller, how can you fairly deal for both? By being an honest broker.
Can you fairly play chess on each side?
I know it seems odd, but dual agency is very common here. The fiduciary is to the seller, honesty and reasonably diligent disclosure is the obligation to the buyer.

MLS/REALTOR traditions are odder than the law. One could ask how agents (including cooperating buyer agents) who ultmately derive their commissions from the seller deal fairly with a buyer? How could an agent who is solely motivated by a sale advise caution to buyers? How can brokerages compete with one another also cooperate? How can a listing agent treat offers farily from coop agents when the coop agent cuts the potential commission of the listing agent by half?

It baffles attorneys and the public alike, but the system muddles on.