Hi. I've been house hunting for a while, and I'm really torn between dual
agency or having my own agent working for me.

With dual agency, does the seller's agent also take the buyer's
commissions?

We placed an offer on a house, for 271k, and the agent recommended w go
with 275k if we want the place, which I believe was the number the owner
was looking for. The owner countered with 277k, and I we were probably
able to bridge the gap to 275k if we countered back. I told the agent
that he was in a position to bridge that gap to my price because he was in
a dual agency role. He told me what he did was commissions was his
business.

Am I incorrect in assuming the seller's agent is in a position to bridge
that gap? Was I rude for asking? I'm unclear on the process as this is
my first time buying a home, but I've read that buyer's agent commissions
come in at 2.5 - 3%.

Shouldn't I be at a small advantage in not having a buyer's agent, if I'm
able to negotiate?

In article ,
Rainman wrote:
Hi. I've been house hunting for a while, and I'm really torn between dual
agency or having my own agent working for me.

Better off having a buyers agent. Otherwise both listing & selling
agent work for the seller, not you.

With dual agency, does the seller's agent also take the buyer's
commissions?

Yes. One agent wearing 2 hats and neither hat is on your side.

We placed an offer on a house, for 271k, and the agent recommended w go
with 275k if we want the place, which I believe was the number the owner
was looking for. The owner countered with 277k, and I we were probably
able to bridge the gap to 275k if we countered back. I told the agent
that he was in a position to bridge that gap to my price because he was in
a dual agency role. He told me what he did was commissions was his
business.

He is trying to boost his comission, not look out for your interests.
He should have passed on the 271k offer and you and the seller start
dickering from there, not 4k higher.

Am I incorrect in assuming the seller's agent is in a position to bridge
that gap? Was I rude for asking? I'm unclear on the process as this is
my first time buying a home, but I've read that buyer's agent commissions
come in at 2.5 - 3%.

You are not rude, this agent is being unethical. Unless you REALLY want
this house, walk and get a buyers agent.

Shouldn't I be at a small advantage in not having a buyer's agent, if I'm
able to negotiate?

Without an agent that is representing YOU, you are negotiating with both
hands tied behind your back.

--
Rich Greenberg Marietta, GA, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 770 321 6507
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red & Shasta (RIP),Red, husky Owner:Chinook-L
Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L

Rainman wrote:
Hi. I've been house hunting for a while, and I'm really torn between
dual
agency or having my own agent working for me.
Its always better to have someone working just for you.

With dual agency, does the seller's agent also take the buyer's
commissions?
Yes.

We placed an offer on a house, for 271k, and the agent recommended w
go
with 275k if we want the place, which I believe was the number the
owner
was looking for. The owner countered with 277k, and I we were
probably
able to bridge the gap to 275k if we countered back. I told the
agent
that he was in a position to bridge that gap to my price because he
was in
a dual agency role. He told me what he did was commissions was his
business.

Am I incorrect in assuming the seller's agent is in a position to
bridge
that gap? Was I rude for asking? I'm unclear on the process as this
is
my first time buying a home, but I've read that buyer's agent
commissions
come in at 2.5 - 3%.
You were asking him to give up $4000, or almost 50% of his commission.
It was worth asking, but he had the right to refuse. Some agents will
give up part of their commission to close a deal, but 50% is a big
chunk. Many factors can come into play here, such as the amount of
money and time he has spent marketing the property, how many other
interested parties there are out there.

Shouldn't I be at a small advantage in not having a buyer's agent, if
I'm
able to negotiate?
Well yes, but when you want him to give up 50% of the commission, he
would be doing work on both sides of the deal and making the same
commission as he would if you had your own agent. Agent dont get to
keep all of their commissions, they give part of it (up to 60%)to the
brokerage house.

In article , Rainman wrote:
Hi. I've been house hunting for a while, and I'm really torn between dual
agency or having my own agent working for me.

Why are you "torn"? This is a no-brainer: in dual agency, the agent is working
for the seller, and you have nobody working for you.

With dual agency, does the seller's agent also take the buyer's
commissions?

Yes.

[snip]
Shouldn't I be at a small advantage in not having a buyer's agent, if I'm
able to negotiate?

No. You're at a tremendous DISadvantage here.

First of all, as a buyer, you have *no* leverage whatever to negotiate
commissions, regardless of whom the agents are working for, because you're not
paying them. The *seller* pays the commissions. You have no role in that. The
commission is determined by the listing contract between the seller and the
listing agent, and thus you are not, and cannot be, a party to any negotiation
over commission.

Second, without an agent working to represent your interests, you're in a very
weak position to negotiate anything. The only leverage you have is your
willingness to walk away.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:14:43 -0800, Fiddledeedee wrote:


Rainman wrote:
[quoted text muted]
dual
[quoted text muted]
Its always better to have someone working just for you.
[quoted text muted]
Yes.

[quoted text muted]
go
[quoted text muted]
owner
[quoted text muted]
probably
[quoted text muted]
agent
[quoted text muted]
was in
[quoted text muted]
bridge
[quoted text muted]
is
[quoted text muted]
commissions
[quoted text muted]
You were asking him to give up $4000, or almost 50% of his commission.
It was worth asking, but he had the right to refuse. Some agents will
give up part of their commission to close a deal, but 50% is a big
chunk. Many factors can come into play here, such as the amount of
money and time he has spent marketing the property, how many other
interested parties there are out there.

Actually, I was asking him to give up 50% of the buying agent's
commissions, something he wouldn't get if I had my own agent.

[quoted text muted]
I'm
[quoted text muted]
Well yes, but when you want him to give up 50% of the commission, he
would be doing work on both sides of the deal and making the same
commission as he would if you had your own agent. Agent dont get to
keep all of their commissions, they give part of it (up to 60%)to the
brokerage house.

Yeah, I had a hard time putting it in words.. The gap was $5000... The
commissions my current agent is taking is 2.2% - on 300k that's $6600 for
writing up an offer. Without the agent that $6600 would have gone to
someone else's pocket, not mine.

btw, I've brought in my agent for the next offer.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:28:41 +0000, Rich Greenberg wrote:

In article ,
Rainman wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Better off having a buyers agent. Otherwise both listing & selling
agent work for the seller, not you.

[quoted text muted]

Yes. One agent wearing 2 hats and neither hat is on your side.

[quoted text muted]

He is trying to boost his comission, not look out for your interests.
He should have passed on the 271k offer and you and the seller start
dickering from there, not 4k higher.

[quoted text muted]

You are not rude, this agent is being unethical. Unless you REALLY want
this house, walk and get a buyers agent.

We walked. didn't like the agent.


[quoted text muted]

Without an agent that is representing YOU, you are negotiating with both
hands tied behind your back.

Thanks - we did just that - we've got a buyer's agent now. A friend, and
FWIW he's offered to rebate some of the commissions he gets out of the
deal too. good friend of ours.


Thanks for the reply!

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:26:55 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Rainman wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Why are you "torn"? This is a no-brainer: in dual agency, the agent is working
for the seller, and you have nobody working for you.

Yeah true. Yet it's still a hot market here in Vancouver, and I figure
there isn't a lot of wiggle room on prices here right now. I just wanted
to have as much bargaining position possible. I've corrected it and got
myself a buyer's agent now.

[quoted text muted]

Yes.

[snip]
[quoted text muted]

No. You're at a tremendous DISadvantage here.

First of all, as a buyer, you have *no* leverage whatever to negotiate
commissions, regardless of whom the agents are working for, because you're not
paying them. The *seller* pays the commissions. You have no role in that. The
commission is determined by the listing contract between the seller and the
listing agent, and thus you are not, and cannot be, a party to any negotiation
over commission.

Yeah, I figure that, but if the gap is $5000, I have a right to ask the
agent to fill that gap or walk away, which we did. The commissions he'd
have earned as the buyer's agent would have been higher


Second, without an agent working to represent your interests, you're in a very
weak position to negotiate anything. The only leverage you have is your
willingness to walk away.


Truth is, this listing was 278k, and right across the street is one for
299k that's way nicer, cleaner, more updated and requires almost no
renovations. We're going in trying to get ~290k...

Rainman wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:14:43 -0800, Fiddledeedee wrote:


btw, I've brought in my agent for the next offer.

Good. It sounds like this agent will be palying on YOUR team and
looking out for whats best for you.

Good lunk!

In article . com, "Fiddledeedee" wrote:

Rainman wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:14:43 -0800, Fiddledeedee wrote:


btw, I've brought in my agent for the next offer.

Good. It sounds like this agent will be palying on YOUR team and
looking out for whats best for you.

Just make sure you get that in writing. It varies considerably from state to
state, but you want to be assured that the agent is actually obligated by
contract to work on your behalf. Some places, in the absence of such a
contractual obligation, even "your" agent is still working for the seller.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:43:07 GMT, someone wrote:


Am I incorrect in assuming the seller's agent is in a position to bridge
that gap? Was I rude for asking?

The agent has a contract for such and such % commission for the sale
of the house. The agent is under no obligation to re-negotiate an
existing contract. They are usually pretty adamant about this, and of
course they are. Unless they hold the line, why wouldn't people
expect this to happen on EVERY deal? Maybe you were or were not not
"rude" for initially asking, but you are getting that way now, you
have crossed the line, you already asked, were answered, but now are
still looking for validation to the contrary on usenet.

If you do not want to pay the full commission, the time to arrange
that is before you start looking at houses with that agent, not after
you have already been shown a house and put in an offer.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:28:41 +0000 (UTC), someone wrote:

You are not rude, this agent is being unethical. Unless you REALLY want
this house, walk and get a buyers agent.

I see no evidence that the agent is unethical. Dual agency is allowed
in many states. If it is disclosed it is up to the Buyer to use that
agant or not, and he did. It would not cost him any more or less to
go to a Seller's agent or to a Buyer's agent.

Buyer's agents are not necessarily the great thing that people (mostly
Buyer's agents) make them out to be. The counterclaim is that they
are frequently just bad or lazy agents who couldn't obtain enough
listings for themselves so had nothing to lose by becoming Buyer's
agents. In each individual case maybe that is true and maybe that is
not.

But in any case, even the Buyer's agent doesn't get paid unless the
deal closes - so where REALLY is their incentive?

Dual agency is not unethical, it just isn't much better than just
going to see a Seller's agent. The mistake people make is wanting a
confidant and emotional hand-holder when all they should expect is a
commission salesperson.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

Just make sure you get that in writing. It varies considerably from

No KIDDING! Get it in writing ! Get it on an addendum that goes along with
the purchase and sale agreement, that EVERYBODY signs off on- sellers
included. Make sure it specified that its an "agreement" and not worded
differently, like offer, gift whatever. Like leave nothing ambiguous.

Make sure its valid for every property you make an offer on.

Make sure your bank will accept your agents commission to be paid towards
closing costs.

Make sure you get copies of EVERYTHING- especially your agreement with the
agent. If you say he is a good friend of yours I suppose all the above
warnings are unnecessary but no harm in getting it in writing - right ?


This is from recent harrowing personal experience -so dont just take for
granted what I've written please at least investigate the above angles
before anything. I still cannot get myself to go through the details of the
deal, suffice to say that we did not get copies of something and when we
got suspicious of intentions things just blew up... Its amazing that we
were even able to salvage the deal, thanks to the "Listing" agent !

Anita

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:50:06 GMT, someone wrote:

No KIDDING! Get it in writing !

That's pretty basic for any contract dealing with real estate. No
surprise there.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

Get your own agent!!!!!

If you and spouse were getting a divorce, would share a lawyer? So why
should you share an agent?

Also, there is no "buyers commission." The seller offers a commission
to their agent to sell the house which the agent must share with a
buyers agent if one is involved. The seller will not pay less
commission if there is not a buyers agent.

Also, there is a little thing called fiduciary duty. In plain English,
this means that your loyalty is owed to the person that hired you to
represent them. A sellers agent does not owe you loyalty and does not
have a duty to protect your interest, but if you get a buyers agent,
then that person will work for you and your interests. It does not
matter that the buyers agent is paid via the sellers commission.
Fiduciary duty is determined by realtionship and not the monetary
source.

Sophie

On 28 Mar 2005 12:09:09 -0800, someone wrote:

Also, there is no "buyers commission." The seller offers a commission
to their agent to sell the house which the agent must share with a
buyers agent if one is involved. The seller will not pay less
commission if there is not a buyers agent.

Yet there is a constant supply of people who post hear wanting
validation of their hope to pay less because they are not using a
Buyer's Agent therefore they think that the Seller will pay less and
they want this fictional "savings" passed on to them.

Hey, if you can find a Buyer's Agent who will pay you a kick back from
his/her commish, go for it - just don't try to involve the Seller in
it!


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.