Specialising in residential resales in Morris, Essex and Union Counties in New Jersey. I am a GRI, SRES and about to take the state Broker's exam. I work 70% with sellers and 30% buyers.
I also have partnerships for purchases of retirement and/or second/vacation homes in Florida, No and So Carolina, and Tennnessee.
We have disclosed dual agency in NJ. Most buyers prefer to have an agent other than the listing agent to represent them, however some do not. In a different market when homes were selling in a day or few hours (yes it happened often and not that long ago. I am sure many of you remember.) it was more frequent that buyers opted for dual agency with the listing agent often assisting the buyer with the purchase. In those times it was probably a true benefit to the client/buyer. There appeared an equal benefit to the client/seller as well. In this slower market we still find many instances where both buyer and seller are well-served by dual agency. Some of the postings here seem to assume that there is an automatic unfairness on the part of the agent who practices dual agency. This feeds the public perception that real estate agents are, in general, lacking in professionalism. This is a symptom of having a large number of weak agents in the business. As for the agent collecting both sides of the commission, few here seem to recognize that it is actually more work. The commission is, in fact, EARNED on both sides. To perform dual agency properly (and that inherently means ethically), the practioner MUST work with two clients. To make sure you are properly representing each side, you have to work harder by the very nature of the situation. It is extra work - I hesitate to say "double" work. It seems that those who have NOT performed dual agency are the biggest critics, quick to accuse the dual agent of some sinister motive. Many comments here are focusing on the selling price as somehow a conflicting matter. The buyer wants the lowest, the seller wants the highest, are the statements. In the end it is the price at which a ‘willing buyer’ and a ‘willing seller’ reach agreement that achieves the sale. There is a suggestion that the dual agent is somehow fooling both parties to agree to an unfair price. This suggestion also casts the real estate industry in a negative light. Are those commentators saying that we are so untrustworthy that we cannot be fair to all parties? Are we not charged with that obligation even when there are separate agents for buyer and for seller? Are they saying that an agent is inherently trying to take advantage of the other side? And references to trial attorneys representing both parties in a law suit as rationale for dual agency being unworkable are NOT APPROPRIATE! In NJ we are “cooperating brokers” when representing a buyer to a seller. We are not called ‘adversarial’ brokers. We are supposed to facilitate the process and reach agreement, not dispute resolution. Lastly, do not forget that, in NJ anyway, but I bet in other states also where dual agency is accepted under state law, the seller must also agree to dual agency. If either party does not agree then there cannot be dual agency. I realize it can be a complicated matter to handle. And I realize there are many agents who choose not to work as a dual agent where it is permitted. That is their choice. I can understand why an agent would choose not to because of the reluctance to be careful and make the extra effort to be fair to two clients. I hope those agents forego acting as a dual agent not because they believe they are incapable of fairness. George Walsh Keller Williams Summit, N J
