I am in the process of seeking a (new) buyer's agent/broker. I would
like to pick a better match for me this time, so this will require a
little more time to dedicate to researching, interviewing, etc, during
business hours than I can dedicate right now. It might be a week or
three before I can do all this.

In the meantime, in non-business hours, I've been researching possible
homes, and have identified a few I would like to look at inside.

My question is: if I contact the seller or seller's agent directly to
arrange a viewing, am I going to have difficulty with the sellers
wanting to avoid paying my agent's commision later on? I am in Atlanta,
GA, in case there are local customs at play. Is this just a horrible
idea for some other reason I'm not seeing?

It's very frustrating sitting on my hands while my ability to spend time
finding an agent is on hold.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
I am in the process of seeking a (new) buyer's agent/broker. I would
like to pick a better match for me this time, so this will require a
little more time to dedicate to researching, interviewing, etc, during
business hours than I can dedicate right now. It might be a week or
three before I can do all this.

In the meantime, in non-business hours, I've been researching possible
homes, and have identified a few I would like to look at inside.

My question is: if I contact the seller or seller's agent directly to
arrange a viewing, am I going to have difficulty with the sellers
wanting to avoid paying my agent's commision later on? I am in Atlanta,
GA, in case there are local customs at play. Is this just a horrible
idea for some other reason I'm not seeing?

It's very frustrating sitting on my hands while my ability to spend time
finding an agent is on hold.

First, if the home is listed, you do not contact the seller directly.

If you have the listing agent show you a home and do not tell them
beforehand that you have an agent, they then become the procuring cause of
sale should you buy the house.

Selecting an agent to work with is not rocket science. Get some referrals,
visit a few offices, make some calls. Pick one and move on or just go ahead
and work with listing agents. Whatever you do, stop playing games. If you
don't have time to find an agent you don't have time to look at houses.

Hello Dan in Atlanta,

The good news for you is that you are in Atlanta and you have many great
choices. I am helping my daughter and her husband research for a house there
at this time.They live there and I am on the internet end of the search.
The trick is to decide on the area then pick an agent who really knows that
SPECIFIC area well. I suggested that before they contact an agent, they
become as knowledgeable as possible by driving through all the target
neighborhoods and stopping to talk to the residents for local gossip on
homes on the market or coming on the market, and that way she can better
judge the quality of the agent's advice. The residents are generally not shy
about revealing the pros and cons of their neighborhood, and they know the
untold stories on the homes for sale. Remember that a real estate agent
cannot tell you everything that neighbors can.

Go on your own and look at any home you like. On listed homes, the seller's
agent will want to make the sale, and thus the full commission. They may
talk you into doing it without a buyer's agent. Or, you may like the agent,
and they can put on a buyer agent hat and help you on homes they do not have
listed. A few years ago, and possibly in some places now, there was no such
thing as a buyer's agent. All agents represented the seller, but the real
world relationship that built up between the agent looking for a house with
you clouded that. Certainly there were agents who were working more for the
buyer when they were supposed to be working for the seller because that got
them to a sale. But no agent legally represented the buyer no matter how
friendly they were to the buyer. If you see a home you like, tell the agent
you will be back in touch as soon as you line up a buyer agent if you feel
like you need to do that. Look also at for sale by owners. You can buy those
with no agent by getting a lawyer to write your offer. You will have to
decide if the price is right, the lawyer will not know. In some cases, a
buyer agent can contact a for sale by owner seller and negotiate a
commission agreement for a one time showing to a named client.

You can visit a firm that has agents active in the area of your interest and
ask their sales manager to recommend a couple of their agents compatible
with your preferences . Or, you can call a few new owners of homes recently
bought, and ask them for their comments on their buyer agent. You may be
faced with a buyer agent contract or agreement of exclusivity. Careful with
that. You may get locked in for too long with someone you don't like or who
is performing poorly. Try doing it with a gentleman's agreement and see how
it goes. I do not know the current custom on that, but I would favor trying
out an agent with only a handshake agreement and the understanding that if
things were not going well for either side, either could move on. There are
buyer agent agreements where you are paying the agent and have total
independence. I assume you want the kind where the agent gets paid by the
listing broker from the commissions of the sale. The seller is paying the
agreed total commission, so it is no additional cost to the seller if you
come with a buyer agent. It just costs the listing broker/agent part of
their commission they would have earned if they handled both sides..

By the way, you can help me. You are researching local homes by yourself
how? Is there a firm in Atlanta that has the MLS listings on-line? There are
some partials on realtor.com, but certainly not all, and there are many
errors in those listings. In some areas, it is possible to register with a
broker and gain access to MLS but I do not know the extent of the obligation
to that broker by doing so or if that is possible in Atlanta..

SkyBlue



Dan wrote:

I am in the process of seeking a (new) buyer's agent/broker. I would
like to pick a better match for me this time, so this will require a
little more time to dedicate to researching, interviewing, etc, during
business hours than I can dedicate right now. It might be a week or
three before I can do all this.

In the meantime, in non-business hours, I've been researching possible
homes, and have identified a few I would like to look at inside.

My question is: if I contact the seller or seller's agent directly to
arrange a viewing, am I going to have difficulty with the sellers
wanting to avoid paying my agent's commision later on? I am in Atlanta,
GA, in case there are local customs at play. Is this just a horrible
idea for some other reason I'm not seeing?

It's very frustrating sitting on my hands while my ability to spend time
finding an agent is on hold.

JD, thanks for your response.

JD wrote:
First, if the home is listed, you do not contact the seller directly.

Right. Some of them are FSBO which was what I meant by maybe contacting
seller, but thanks for pointing that out (if I hadn't known that would
have been important).

If you have the listing agent show you a home and do not tell them
beforehand that you have an agent, they then become the procuring cause of
sale should you buy the house.

Thanks! That was what I needed to know. I don't want to jerk anyone
around, and I don't want to inadvertantly violate a rule of the system.

Selecting an agent to work with is not rocket science. Get some referrals,
visit a few offices, make some calls. Pick one and move on or just go ahead
and work with listing agents. Whatever you do, stop playing games. If you
don't have time to find an agent you don't have time to look at houses.

Well my previous buyer's agent just didn't work out - after that I am
not anxious to make a quick decision for my next one. I want to at
least spend some time talking face to face with candidates. But, I
can't take time off from work right now to do that.

I'm definitely not _trying_ to play any games, which is why I asked.
Perhaps my phrasing or choice of words made it sounds like I'm trying to
get away with something underhanded, but that isn't my intent at all.
Actually, I'm still not really clear on what game I'm playing anyway.

Thanks for your input.

SkyBlue wrote:

By the way, you can help me. You are researching local homes by yourself
how? Is there a firm in Atlanta that has the MLS listings on-line? There are

There are several web sites with atlanta area MLS onlien. I dont like
realtor.com's interface very well, so I have mostly used:

http://www.coldwellbankeratlanta.com/frame.cfm
http://mc.kw.com/Cobb/pages/frame_mls.php

coldwell banker's interface is easier (to me), but sometimes the kw.com
site has pictures for houses that coldwell banekr does not.


Thanks for your input

JD wrote:

"Dan" wrote in message
...

My concern for you is that you're spinning your wheels. If you're serious
about buying then you have to get off the stick and either find an agent or
be satisfied with listing agents. I don't know what your market is like, but
listings don't last too long around here.

The market here is mixed. Most of the houses I looked at 2 months ago
are still on the market. But not the really good listings, of course.

What kind of problem did you have with your first agent? Truth is, working
with a buyer is usually a complete pain in the ass and the conversion rate
tends to be low. That equates to a lot of time spent, growing an ulcer, and
rarely getting paid. To have a good, successful relationship with an agent
when you're a serious shopper here's what you need to do:

That is very interesting stuff. I did not realize that the conversion
rate is so low, actually. I appreciate your commentary on the matter.
I try very hard to be totally upfront and respectful of others' time in
all of my professional dealings, because 1) it's an important habit in
my (every?) line of work, and 2) it's just the right thing to do. Your
comments will help me in that. I did everything you said except (1)
because I don't have a specific timeline. But, our issues were not
speed. If you really are interested we can discuss what they were
offline - we parted company on polite terms so I'd rather not speak ill
of her even psuedo anonymously in public.

Taking a stack of cards to open houses is something I had not thought of
before, thanks. I did not go to any open houses on my own while working
with ex-agent, but it could happen next time.

If you let an agent know your true intentions and show some respect for
their time and prove your loyalty, they will return that loyalty in spades

absolutely. this is the way to treat anyone you work with. loyalty
begets loyalty.

Thus said Dan :
If you have the listing agent show you a home and do not tell them
beforehand that you have an agent, they then become the procuring cause of
sale should you buy the house.

Thanks! That was what I needed to know. I don't want to jerk anyone
around, and I don't want to inadvertantly violate a rule of the system.

Yup; if you see sign in front of a house that interests you, make sure
you call anybody, any agent at all, other than the agent whose name is
on that sign.

Selecting an agent to work with is not rocket science. Get some referrals,
visit a few offices, make some calls. Pick one and move on or just go ahead
and work with listing agents. Whatever you do, stop playing games. If you
don't have time to find an agent you don't have time to look at houses.

Well my previous buyer's agent just didn't work out - after that I am
not anxious to make a quick decision for my next one. I want to at
least spend some time talking face to face with candidates. But, I
can't take time off from work right now to do that.

Unfortunately, you kind of need to choose people before you choose
property. It's not uncommon for a prospective buyer agent to offer "one
free show" of some properties without obligation as part of the
interview process.

JD,

Curious about your statement regarding procuring cause. In the days before
buyers agents, the procuring cause determined which of several brokers claiming
a seller's commission was due the commission. "Who talked to the buyer first?"
Who showed the property first?" Sometimes it took courts to figure out the
procuring cause in large commission disputes.

When buyers agents enter the picture, is it not true that the buyer agent
writes the offer, includes themselves as the selling agent with provision for
their commission to be paid by the listing broker or seller at time of closing,
presents the contract offer to the listing agent, and when the sale closes,
there is no argument that there is a listing share and a selling share. It
would seem to be the buyer's right to introduce a buyer's agent at any time in
the process because otherwise, the buyer has no representation. And if a
Realtor writes the offer as buyer agent, even after not being there at all for
the showing, it seems fair to assume they will get the seller's share of the
commission. If the listing agent insists on the full commission because the
buyer did not have a buyer agent at first seeing the property, what does the
Association of Realtors say about that when the agents are both Realtors and
the other wrote the offer?

Thanks for any clarification you might offer on that.



JD wrote:

"Dan" wrote in message
...
I am in the process of seeking a (new) buyer's agent/broker. I would
like to pick a better match for me this time, so this will require a
little more time to dedicate to researching, interviewing, etc, during
business hours than I can dedicate right now. It might be a week or
three before I can do all this.

In the meantime, in non-business hours, I've been researching possible
homes, and have identified a few I would like to look at inside.

My question is: if I contact the seller or seller's agent directly to
arrange a viewing, am I going to have difficulty with the sellers
wanting to avoid paying my agent's commision later on? I am in Atlanta,
GA, in case there are local customs at play. Is this just a horrible
idea for some other reason I'm not seeing?

It's very frustrating sitting on my hands while my ability to spend time
finding an agent is on hold.

First, if the home is listed, you do not contact the seller directly.

If you have the listing agent show you a home and do not tell them
beforehand that you have an agent, they then become the procuring cause of
sale should you buy the house.

Selecting an agent to work with is not rocket science. Get some referrals,
visit a few offices, make some calls. Pick one and move on or just go ahead
and work with listing agents. Whatever you do, stop playing games. If you
don't have time to find an agent you don't have time to look at houses.

I know what you're going through. I finally found a great buyer's agent
(after just not "matching" with two previous ones that weren't that pleased
with my lower budget, and did nothing for me but put me on automatic daily
e-mails...) In my searching on the internet, I found one real estate
agent's incredible website, though--I'm thinking of sending her some
"thank-you money" just because I used her website (in addition to my new
agent's help) almost every day! You can search by name of the street (so
if you see something with a for sale sign, run home and put in the street
name and find out more info--a lot of time there's a digital picture tour),
subdivision, zip code, etc. and if you search under "tools" you can see new
properties that have come on the market that day and properties that have
had their selling price reduced that day. It was a great help:

http://nichole.citihomes.com/myhomepage.cfm
Kirsten

"Dan" wrote in message
...
SkyBlue wrote:

By the way, you can help me. You are researching local homes by yourself
how? Is there a firm in Atlanta that has the MLS listings on-line? There
are

There are several web sites with atlanta area MLS onlien. I dont like
realtor.com's interface very well, so I have mostly used:

http://www.coldwellbankeratlanta.com/frame.cfm
http://mc.kw.com/Cobb/pages/frame_mls.php

coldwell banker's interface is easier (to me), but sometimes the kw.com
site has pictures for houses that coldwell banekr does not.


Thanks for your input

"SkyBlue" wrote
JD wrote:
Curious about your statement regarding procuring cause. In the days before
buyers agents, the procuring cause determined which of several brokers
claiming
a seller's commission was due the commission. "Who talked to the buyer
first?"
Who showed the property first?" Sometimes it took courts to figure out the
procuring cause in large commission disputes.

When buyers agents enter the picture, is it not true that the buyer agent
writes the offer, includes themselves as the selling agent with provision
for
their commission to be paid by the listing broker or seller at time of
closing,
presents the contract offer to the listing agent, and when the sale
closes,
there is no argument that there is a listing share and a selling share. It
would seem to be the buyer's right to introduce a buyer's agent at any
time in
the process because otherwise, the buyer has no representation. And if a
Realtor writes the offer as buyer agent, even after not being there at all
for
the showing, it seems fair to assume they will get the seller's share of
the
commission. If the listing agent insists on the full commission because
the
buyer did not have a buyer agent at first seeing the property,

IMO, a listing agent (a.k.a. seller's agent) does not deserve the whole
commission just because he or she spent maybe at most an hour or two with
the buyer showing him/er around the house. Nor from my experience with two
home purchases (extensively researched) and one home sale would any selling
agent expect what you propose.

Georgia's laws, like many states now, do have provisions for buyer's agents.
E.g. see web site http://www.realpagessites.com/buyers...ion/page2.html
.. Chances are, Georgia law also has provisions for "dual agency." This
sounds like something Dan might have to deal with, although I advise against
it, as it's easily avoided. (Comments, anyone, on dual agency?) Dual agency
occurs if the same real estate company that lists the property also
represents a potential buyer. It's allowed, and when a buyer signs a
contract for "dual agency," typically he or she will have explained to him
that the company will do everything possible to get him/er (the buyer) the
best price possible. (Meanwhile, some other agent for the same company has
already signed a contract with the seller saying the same thing.) But the
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.

I see little advantage in dual agency, and many web sites strongly
discourage using it. The only possible advantage is getting some wiggle room
on the negotiating price: Maybe the buyer and seller actually do use dual
agency and also the exact same agent. Perhaps the agent will agree to a
commission of just 4% since if the buyer goes out and gets a buyer's agent,
the first agent's commission will be less, at 3%, typically, for the areas
where I have lived. But this is a lot of finagling. A buyer has enough to
deal with just negotiating all the other minutiae of an offer. Plus, the
buyer just can't be as certain a dual agent will work hard for him/er to get
the best price.

As for shopping around for a buyer's agent:
In one instance, I called a company cold, after studying one of those "homes
for sales" free pamphlets one may pick up at grocery stores and drug stores.
I said I was interested in such-and-such neighborhood (found with
www.realtor.com), wasn't quite ready to commit, but would certainly like to
give someone there a chance to show me around some homes and the
neighborhood and possibly make a deal. The person staffing the phones showed
me around and was fantastic. Unfortunately, I re-located far from her area.
I liked her so much that I asked her if she'd like to refer me to a company
in my new location, explicitly stating I'd only be interested if she got a
cut of any commission that resulted. She set me up with another company and
assured me she would get a "finder's fee" for sending me there.

A "relocation specialist" with the real estate company she connected me with
emailed me, as I'd requested. The RS assigned me to a buyer's agent. I
looked at maybe five houses over a total of 75 minutes with the guy. The guy
was not knowledgeable (e.g. I asked about homeowner's association fees and
he said there were none, which turned out to be wrong), was doing so much
talking I couldn't get in my concerns about my home purchase, and seemed
unprofessional -- judgmental of other agents and homes, etc. Plus, the
relocation specialist who sent me to him emailed me at the outset that I'd
"be happier if I could increase how much I could spend." I'd done a lot of
research at www.realtor.com and other web sites on the neighborhood I was
most interested in, and indeed, this person didn't know what she was talking
about. (I ended up buying a home with which I am quite pleased very much in
my original price range.) I don't know for sure but I suspect she was just
trying to get more money out of me from the get-go. Or she was just being
presumptuous about the precise neighborhood where I wanted to live. So
because of everything, I stopped contact with this company. I thought of
emailing to explain, but I am not sure this is necessary, and I don't want
to hurt the guy who showed me around. (He isn't getting any commission from
me, so I figure that's enough of a message.) They haven't emailed me. If
they do, I'll explain I thought the guy the company sent me to was nice
enough but I couldn't quite connect with him... Or something more tactful.
Dunno.

I began shopping around for another buyer's agent, figuring I'd drop in on
some open houses (where I was interested in the neighborhood but not the
particular house), ask around, etc. and not just show up at anyone office so
I could be sort of pushed around with sub-quality (or at least quality not
to my liking) the way I had been. I came across a property manager (who was
also a real estate agent) of a condominium complex in which I was interested
but quickly learned I was ineligible (no pets allowed) for buying there. But
the property manager/real estate agent was so forthcoming with answers to
basic questions I had about the area (from termites to water fees to why the
neighborhood had been built) and so unassuming that after looking in person
at some homes I found at www.realtor.com, I called her and said how about
getting me some price history (or some other history; can't remember) and
getting me inside these homes? We met again, she had everything I'd asked
for in hand, went over it all carefully with me, then reviewed and asked me
to sign a 30-day buyer's agent contract. I couldn't blame her at this point,
of course, and anyway I was pleased with what I'd seen and happily signed.
We visited houses that same day and I continued to be impressed by her
approach. She has her own business (so is not with any of the big "shark"
firms; they seem like sharks to me) and clearly had a good reputation with
the condo. community she managed. (I saw residents come in or phone and
watched her work with them.) We visited maybe ten homes over the next ten
days, all of which I'd chosen, though I told her to chime in anytime with
other suggestions, with me doing a lot of research but she also providing me
all the history available from the MLS system (e.g. past sales prices of
particular homes; averages for homes in the area where I was buying for the
last year; etc.), making calls to seller's agents for visiting appointments
and disclosures, etc. I closed on a home within three weeks of signing my
buyer's agent contract.

I think I lucked out in finding this person. I suggest stopping into open
houses, as a first step, in the neighborhood in which you're interested. If
there aren't many or this is too convenient, call up a company out of the
blue (or maybe look in the yellow pages for independents?), say you're
"**shopping around for a buyer's agent**. Is there anyone there who would
like to give it a shot with you for at most two hours?" Be polite and
explain you need someone with whom you can "click"; buying a home is a big
step for you and you want to feel comfortable. If they're serious, they'll
have a buyer's agent for you.

It's their job to do all within reason to make you feel comfortable, or else
they're not earning their commission. And you want to feel comfortable with
your home purchase, right?

Good luck. An update on how you did in finding a buyer's agent would be
welcome and I'm sure edifying to the group. :-)

snip

"Dan" wrote
I am in the process of seeking a (new) buyer's agent/broker. I would
like to pick a better match for me this time, so this will require a
little more time to dedicate to researching, interviewing, etc, during
business hours than I can dedicate right now. It might be a week or
three before I can do all this.

In the meantime, in non-business hours, I've been researching possible
homes, and have identified a few I would like to look at inside.

My question is: if I contact the seller or seller's agent directly to
arrange a viewing, am I going to have difficulty with the sellers
wanting to avoid paying my agent's commision later on? I am in
Atlanta,
GA, in case there are local customs at play. Is this just a horrible
idea for some other reason I'm not seeing?

It's very frustrating sitting on my hands while my ability to spend
time
finding an agent is on hold.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
comments will help me in that. I did everything you said except (1)
because I don't have a specific timeline.

That's OK too. So, if you find the right home today will you make an offer?
If so, you are also willing to wait 6 months? All of this is fine but you
must understand the dynamics.

Truth is, you can make an excellent client because you are in no hurry but
can act today (if that's the case.) Show that loyalty when you do your own
shopping and you will be fine. Just spell it all out with your agent.

"Marc VanHeyningen" wrote in message
...

Yup; if you see sign in front of a house that interests you, make sure
you call anybody, any agent at all, other than the agent whose name is
on that sign.

There is no logical reason for this. At least not in my state.

Unfortunately, you kind of need to choose people before you choose
property. It's not uncommon for a prospective buyer agent to offer "one
free show" of some properties without obligation as part of the
interview process.

This too is off. There are very few true buyer's agents out there -- the
kind that you sign a contract with. Most agents will show you properties
until you find one to buy if you are a truly qualified buyer.

Thanks for the links. The results are disconcerting. On the Keller Williams site,
a typical listing of a KW listed house does not give the street address. It does
have pictures.. Then look at the same listing on the Coldwell Banker site. The CB
site gives the street address (great, you can preview by driving by) but it says
no pictures available. On KW, there is a house listed by CB, but that house does
not appear on the CB site insofar as search by zipcode could determine. This must
mean that the data is in-house manipulated somehow because it is not a feed of
identical MLS database info.

More importantly, did you notice when you used the KW site that you have already
agreed by the terms of the site to using KW in East Cobb as your buyer broker for
any house you looked at on the site for the next 90 days. Very Sinister!!! Note
that if you look at a house say in South Atlanta on the KW site, you are signing
on to use an agent from East Cobb as your buyer broker. What are the chances they
could even find South Atlanta?

I searched in an area in which I am familiar but that I have no interest in now
just to test the site so I readily agree that if we buy one of those I looked at
we will hire KW as the broker.

The CB site has a private and public section. On the private, you have to be their
client to use it, so the terms must be similar, but there is a public site where
you apparently are not pre agreeing to anything. This is an improvement, I hope,
over the CB site in our area. A few years ago, it still had listed as on the
market a house a relative owns that was sold 3 years earlier. Yes, 3 years
earlier. I called the CB listing office as a courtesy and was told that they had
nothing to do with what was on their site, it was done at some other location.
They were indifferent to the incorrect listing. (It was not a valid listing but it
still could draw phone calls of interested parties and they could talk to them
about something else.) I haven't looked lately to see if it is still there, but
with that level of non-concern, it may be.

We will include the CB public site for some preliminary research. We will not use
the KW site because of the terms.





Dan wrote:

SkyBlue wrote:

By the way, you can help me. You are researching local homes by yourself
how? Is there a firm in Atlanta that has the MLS listings on-line? There are

There are several web sites with atlanta area MLS onlien. I dont like
realtor.com's interface very well, so I have mostly used:

http://www.coldwellbankeratlanta.com/frame.cfm
http://mc.kw.com/Cobb/pages/frame_mls.php

coldwell banker's interface is easier (to me), but sometimes the kw.com
site has pictures for houses that coldwell banekr does not.

Thanks for your input

SkyBlue wrote in message
...
JD,

Curious about your statement regarding procuring cause. In the days before
buyers agents, the procuring cause determined which of several brokers
claiming
a seller's commission was due the commission. "Who talked to the buyer
first?"
Who showed the property first?" Sometimes it took courts to figure out the
procuring cause in large commission disputes.

This is a very complex issue and I probably overstated it to the OP.
However, in his situation, with no other agent in sight, if the listing
agent has created a situation with a showing, advice, comps, etc. that puts
the buyer into offer mode, this would make a strong case in a procuring
cause dispute. Which leads me to the point on who makes the detemination.
Procuring cause is not a matter of law in my state. It is handled by the
local board of realtors using the state association's guidelines.

My comments to the OP are cautionary in nature. It's very easy to tell an
agent at an open house that you are working with an agent (a smart agent
will ask,) but it's a different story if you call for a showing -- which was
his intent.

When buyers agents enter the picture, is it not true that the buyer agent
writes the offer, includes themselves as the selling agent with provision
for
their commission to be paid by the listing broker or seller at time of
closing,
presents the contract offer to the listing agent, and when the sale
closes,
there is no argument that there is a listing share and a selling share.

The agency relationship doesn't matter. First, let me tell you that
contracted buyer's agency is very rare in my state. Virtually all
transactions are cooperative via the MLS. In the OP's scenario, the issue
would come up at the presentation of the offer. If the listing agent does
not question agency at that time, he weakens his case for procuring cause
since the offer form covers commission sharing.

It
would seem to be the buyer's right to introduce a buyer's agent at any
time in
the process because otherwise, the buyer has no representation.

Not true. Our law states that if the listing broker prepares an offer, they
become an agent in fact and therefore a dual agent. This must be disclosed
to all parties and I suppose that the seller can refuse to agree, however I
cannot recall ever hearing of such a case. Dual agency in CA is quite
common. Which leads to an important point. "Agent" and "broker" are
essentially interchangeable inthis discussion. What we must remember is that
two salespeople can be involved in a transaction but if they are with the
same broker, a dual agency exists. Contrary to many comments made in
newsgroups, our law mandates that dual agents have a fiduciary
responsibility to both parties.

And if a
Realtor writes the offer as buyer agent, even after not being there at all
for
the showing, it seems fair to assume they will get the seller's share of
the
commission. If the listing agent insists on the full commission because
the
buyer did not have a buyer agent at first seeing the property, what does
the
Association of Realtors say about that when the agents are both Realtors
and
the other wrote the offer?

As I said, it depends on local rules, but I dare say that if a buyer calls a
listing agent for a showing and discusses a potential offer, it would be
difficult to bring in a different agent to prepare an offer. That said,
these disputes are avoided for a number of reasons. For one, it's bad form
to put a deal in jeopardy over a commision sharing dispute. If I were in
that situation, I would try to settle it before presenting the offer.

Caliban wrote in message
ink.net...

IMO, a listing agent (a.k.a. seller's agent) does not deserve the whole
commission just because he or she spent maybe at most an hour or two with
the buyer showing him/er around the house. Nor from my experience with two
home purchases (extensively researched) and one home sale would any
selling
agent expect what you propose.

Well, I guess you've never been an agent.

Georgia's laws, like many states now, do have provisions for buyer's
agents.
E.g. see web site
http://www.realpagessites.com/buyers...ion/page2.html
. Chances are, Georgia law also has provisions for "dual agency." This
sounds like something Dan might have to deal with, although I advise
against
it, as it's easily avoided. (Comments, anyone, on dual agency?) Dual
agency
occurs if the same real estate company that lists the property also
represents a potential buyer. It's allowed, and when a buyer signs a
contract for "dual agency," typically he or she will have explained to him
that the company will do everything possible to get him/er (the buyer) the
best price possible. (Meanwhile, some other agent for the same company has
already signed a contract with the seller saying the same thing.) But the
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?

I see little advantage in dual agency, and many web sites strongly
discourage using it. The only possible advantage is getting some wiggle
room
on the negotiating price: Maybe the buyer and seller actually do use dual
agency and also the exact same agent. Perhaps the agent will agree to a
commission of just 4% since if the buyer goes out and gets a buyer's
agent,
the first agent's commission will be less, at 3%, typically, for the areas
where I have lived. But this is a lot of finagling. A buyer has enough to
deal with just negotiating all the other minutiae of an offer. Plus, the
buyer just can't be as certain a dual agent will work hard for him/er to
get
the best price.

You may want to think it through a little more.

I should add that I'm probably going to send her a $50 check just to cover
her website, since it's so incredible--you can search by street name,
subdivision, zip code--there's usually at least one picture of each house if
not a digital picture tour...you can also click on "tools" and find the
newest listings for that day, as well as the latest "marked down" homes...
Kirsten
"k conover" wrote in message
...
Try http://nichole.citihomes.com/myhomepage.cfm
The most hassle I got from her was an e-mail asking me if I wanted her to
work with me--I didn't answer it and continued to use her site until I
found
a house...
Kirsten
"Dan" wrote in message
...
SkyBlue wrote:
We will include the CB public site for some preliminary research. We
will not use
the KW site because of the terms.

no, I had not noticed those terms, the font is way too small on my
browswer to notice. I will not use their site now that I am aware of
their terms, either.

"JD" wrote
Caliban wrote
IMO, a listing agent (a.k.a. seller's agent) does not deserve the whole
commission just because he or she spent maybe at most an hour or two
with
the buyer showing him/er around the house. Nor from my experience with
two
home purchases (extensively researched) and one home sale would any
selling
agent expect what you propose.

Well, I guess you've never been an agent.

I am sharing my experience with agents. Readers can take it or leave it.

I agree there are sharks and some will pressure the buyer and try to compel
him/er to believe he/she "owes" the agent. Thus I should have said
"reasonable selling agent." And they do exist.

Georgia's laws, like many states now, do have provisions for buyer's
agents.
E.g. see web site
http://www.realpagessites.com/buyers...ion/page2.html
. Chances are, Georgia law also has provisions for "dual agency." This
sounds like something Dan might have to deal with, although I advise
against
it, as it's easily avoided. (Comments, anyone, on dual agency?) Dual
agency
occurs if the same real estate company that lists the property also
represents a potential buyer. It's allowed, and when a buyer signs a
contract for "dual agency," typically he or she will have explained to
him
that the company will do everything possible to get him/er (the buyer)
the
best price possible. (Meanwhile, some other agent for the same company
has
already signed a contract with the seller saying the same thing.) But
the
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?

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****.

I see little advantage in dual agency, and many web sites strongly
discourage using it. The only possible advantage is getting some wiggle
room
on the negotiating price: Maybe the buyer and seller actually do use
dual
agency and also the exact same agent. Perhaps the agent will agree to a
commission of just 4% since if the buyer goes out and gets a buyer's
agent,
the first agent's commission will be less, at 3%, typically, for the
areas
where I have lived. But this is a lot of finagling. A buyer has enough
to
deal with just negotiating all the other minutiae of an offer. Plus, the
buyer just can't be as certain a dual agent will work hard for him/er to
get
the best price.

You may want to think it through a little more.

You may want to think.

Many internet sites say what I say.

Caliban wrote in message
ink.net...

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. 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!

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.

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.

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

"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. :-)

"JD" wrote
Caliban wrote
"JD" wrote
This too is off. There are very few true buyer's agents out there --
the
kind that you sign a contract with.

I know of three states where buyer's agent contracts are usual. From my
internet perusal, I suspect Georgia is one of them.

Wow! Even if you're correct, that's 3/50. An amazing 6%!

I miswrote, so it's actually 4/50 that I know for sure have provisions for
buyer's agents. Searching for "buyer's agent Alabama law" on Google and then
subsequent states indicated that the first ten states (alphabetically) all
have state laws describing the function of buyer's agents. I didn't check
beyond the first ten.

I gave my direct experience. Now give yours: Please list the states that do
not have legal provision for buyer's agents.

Also, are you now or have you ever been a real estate agent?

Caliban wrote in message
et...

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.)

Customary? There are contracts out there that say exactly what you wrote,
but the rest of the sentence says, "or 3% of the purchase price, whichever
is greater."

It also puts you in a bad position if the MLS listing shows less than half
of the contracted commission. What then? Seems to me you, as a buyer, could
be liable for the difference.

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.

OK, so an agent is going to throw away $3700 because your deal leave $300 in
commission on the table? That's just stupid. It reminds me of a question an
old salt agent/mentor of mine likes to ask in his Socratic style (I hope
it's not wasted on you.) ... If you see a dollar bill in the gutter, do you
pick it up or do you walk around the block looking for a 20?

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.

You can negotiate a lot of things aggressively, doesn't mean you'll get
anywhere. In the end, the decision rests soley on the primaries involved. It
is their minds that must meet, not the agents.

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?

Haven't looked, don't care. I know it works with ethical agents and little
will protect you from unethical agents.

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?

Yes. By taking your position, you imply that someone must get screwed in the
deal. I reject this notion.

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.

And I think it's foolish to reject dual agency out of hand. In fact, it's
not at all uncommon for a listing agreement to contain a dual agency
discount.

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

I am licensed but am currently inactive. Could it be that my experience with
many dual agency transactions give me good reason to feel as I do?

Without exception, the dual agency transactions I've been involved in and
witnessed went much smoother and resulted in happier principals than the
deals struck in an adversarial environment.

"JD" wrote in message
m...

Caliban wrote in message
. net...
"JD" wrote
Caliban wrote
"JD" wrote
This too is off. There are very few true buyer's agents out
there --
the
kind that you sign a contract with.

I know of three states where buyer's agent contracts are usual. From
my
internet perusal, I suspect Georgia is one of them.

Wow! Even if you're correct, that's 3/50. An amazing 6%!

I miswrote, so it's actually 4/50 that I know for sure have provisions
for
buyer's agents. Searching for "buyer's agent Alabama law" on Google and
then
subsequent states indicated that the first ten states (alphabetically)
all
have state laws describing the function of buyer's agents. I didn't
check
beyond the first ten.

I gave my direct experience. Now give yours: Please list the states that
do
not have legal provision for buyer's agents.

I never said the legal provisions did not exist. I am reacting to your
assertion that the practice of contracted buyer agency is "usual" and I
doubt that you can provide any valid statistics showing any meaningful
volume of buyer agency contracting.

I doubt you can provide statistics showing otherwise.

No big deal.

The idea of contracted buyer's agency is relatively new in the residential
market. Around 1990 there was a big fuss over it, primarily due to the
efforts of one seminar guy hawking his program.

They attempted to sell the idea to agents with the promise of loyal
buyers.
The few agents who bought into it, in turn sell the idea to prospective
buyers by promoting fear and distrust.

The truth is, good agents never bought into the notion and don't need to
hook buyers that way -- they do it with good service.

A good agent makes sure he or she can stay in business. That means not
giving away all your services.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with a buyer's agent agreeing to a
kind of interview period, whereby the potential client can get a feel for
what he or she can do for them, then asking for a contract.

I don't see any significant difference between this and a seller's agent
listing contract.

Most importantly, historically, the best agents, the ones with the most
experience and longevity are those who consistently list properties.
Agents
who push buyer's agency contracts tend to have little experience, weak
negotiating skills and poor customer service. They tell you that they give
you the best personal service because if they happen to hook you, you're
likely to be the only contract they have.

Seller's agents give the same line.