"JD" wrote
Caliban wrote
conflicts of interest (both agents since they work for the same
company
want
to make the company as much money as possible) are present, which
sucks
IMO.

Here we go with the "make most money" argument. All you need to do is
work
up the numbers to see that the argument is bogus. How much of a gap
have
you
seen in your vast experience? $2K? $5K? 10? How much commission is
involved
and what percentage of the total commission does it represent?

Are you saying dual agency for a buyer has less or the same risks as
having
strictly a buyer's agent for the buyer?

Dual agency works just fine.

I have no problem with your opinion. But a Google search for "avoid dual
agency" turns up a wealth of web sites that advice against it, for all the
reasons I gave. And they're not all buyer's agent company web sites, either.

Dual agency might be just fine when a carefully-chosen agent is used, but I
still believe it's a greater risk than having strictly a buyer's agent.
Plus, there's likely no extra cost for having strictly a buyer's agent.

What creates risk are bad agents and stupid
buyers. In fact, the buyer's agency contracts I've seen expose the buyer
to
the potential of having to pay a commission!

I agree any buyer's agent contract that requires the buyer to pay his/er
commission is baloney. What's customary is for the buyer's agent contract to
stipulate that the seller pays the buyer's agent half the total commission
for the sale. (Of course, this may be somewhat negotiable between all
parties.)

Agents do fight over a thousand dollars. If you dispute this, then your
suggestion above that agents do expect compensation for merely spending
an
hour with a potential buyer is bull****.

You missed the point entirely becasue you're mixing dollars. You suggested
that agents try to get a buyer to spend more for the INCREASED commission
and to that I say bull****. Since you seem incapable of doing it yourself,
I'll give you an example.

Let's say that a house is listed for $200K. At that price, the typical
selling agent's net commission (assuming a 70% split) will be $4032. Now,
let's say a buyer wants to offer $195K. If that is accepted, the
commission
will be $3931. So, you're contention is that an agent will jeopardize a
deal, create bad will and generally be a bad agent for an additional $101?
That's just plain stupid and a thousand dollar difference is even dumber.

Houses may easily go for 10% below asking. Now we're up to a $300 or so
difference in commission. Plus, for example, the seller may not want to deal
with the hassle of making repairs following a home inspection, and the
seller's agent (assuming no buyer's agent is present) may persuade the buyer
to pay for the repairs him/herself. A good buyer's agent will negotiate the
point aggressively.

Many internet sites say what I say.

Sure. Internet sites that are trying to sell you on the idea of enlisting
a
buyer's agent.

Care to cite an internet web site that advocates dual agency?

But hey, if it says so on an internet site it must be true, right?

Do you reject that there are conflicts of interest inherent in dual agency?

This is really not a big deal. I think it's common sense to avoid dual
agency, with the one exception that a dual agent might cut his/er commission
and make it worthwhile for a buyer and seller to use him/er.

I sense you're rather dug in on this point. By any chance are you a real
estate agent?

Either way, just exchanging opinions in the marketplace of ideas so readers
can make up their own minds. :-)