Broker: Ban dual agency
Letter to the Editor
By Inman News, Monday, July 20, 2009.Re: 'Romancing the "hogger" ' (July 20)
Dear Editor:
Here in Vancouver we call them "double enders."
In my opinion, the one single thing that the "profession" -- at least here in British Columbia -- could do to increase public trust, reduce the number of disputes, lawsuits, litigation and low-life practices is to enact legislation that dual agency in any form can no longer be engaged in by real estate agents.
Studies here show that approximately 80 percent of all disputes are a result of "dual agency" or "limited dual agency" -- it's just that easy.
The failure to ban dual agency by our regulators that are entrusted to look after the "public's interests" can only cause one to ponder the question: Are the regulators more interested in the income from dues, hearing fees and fines that support their bureaucracy than they are in cleaning up the industry for the benefit of the public at large?
Don MacKay
Managing broker
Amex Broadway West Realty
Vancouver, Canada
***
What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor.
All rights reserved. This content may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this content without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
Bookmarking Sites
You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Bruce Hahn on July 21, 2009 - 3:45am.
American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance
Amen.
Submitted by Robert A. Hulme on July 21, 2009 - 4:30am.
All for eliminating Limited Agency (Dual Agency)here.
www.AlpineUtHomes.com
www.AmericanForkRealEstate.com
Submitted by Paul Howard on July 21, 2009 - 4:55am.
I'm with Bruce Hahn.
Paul Howard, Broker
www.NJHomeBuyer.com Realty
Cherry Hill NJ 08002
Submitted by Utah Realtor on July 21, 2009 - 6:03am.
So true. Nearly all the complaints that arise between real estate agents happen when an agent does something another sees as unethical because they want their double sided commission.
The main problem with banning it though would be that it would reduce the listing agents incentive to market and sell the property.
Alan Barker
Cornerstone Real Estate Professionals
http://www.utahcornerstone.com
http://www.homes4saleinutah.com
Submitted by Jon Boyd on July 21, 2009 - 6:09am.
I don't have a problem with any particular business model. Dual agency in this case.
The real problem is the lack of timely and complete disclosure.
Most of us know that if a consumer gets complete disclosure that they would not choose dual agency. And certainly never pay full fees for a dual agency situation.
Lack of disclosure and incomplete disclosure is the real problem.
And our state and national REALTOR associations have made that problem worse with all the variations of contrived agency intended to hide dual agency.
There is no benefit to the consumer in dual agency or designated agency or the other labels for contrived agency.
What we really need is a nationally standardized agency disclosure. If that creates an environment where the big brokerages do fewer "hoggers" than so be it.
The alternative is that consumers will continue to be taken advantage of and the profession will continue to have a bad reputation.
Jon Boyd
Broker/Manager
The Home Buyer's Agent of Ann Arbor, Inc.
1908 W. Stadium Blvd. Ann Arbor, MI 48103
http://buyersagentannarbor.com
Ann Arbor Real Estate
Exclusive Buyer Agency
Submitted by Keith Labrecque on July 21, 2009 - 6:47pm.
What he said!
I'm all for dual agency.
I'm all for having the prosecutor defend me in my criminal trial.
I'm all for having my future-ex-wife's lawyer represent my interests in my adversarial divorce.
I want to hire the used-car dealer to inspect & report to me on that nice cream-puff car he's selling, before I decide to buy it.
I'm a pro sports player and want the team's salary negotiator to help me negotiate my salary with the team.
I want the poker player across from me to advise me on my betting strategy for each hand.
I even want Kim Jung Il to be my negotiator on nuclear proliferation.
Like I said, I want a dual agency whenever I buy or sell a property.
I want that listing agent to know everything about my strengths and weaknesses in the negotiation, including my financial limits and how much I just HAVE to have that property!
The spider wants to have the fly over for dinner, too.
I'm ALL FOR dual agency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or am I?
;>P
Keith Labrecque
Two Maples Properties .com
Submitted by Barry Noble on July 23, 2009 - 4:04pm.
Dual Agents not only "DON'T" but "CANNOT" offer both buyer and seller sincere, honest and fair representation. It would take an independent arbitrator, with no commissions involved. After all, we are all human. "Nuf Sed".
Dual Agency should be banned.
It will make a few Associate Brokers or agents in tight, usually high end markets very upset, but hey - Realtors are supposed to be thinking only of their clients good, NOT the bottom line commission. Commissions should come from good hard, accurate and honest work for either Buyer or Seller, not both.
Barry Noble Broker, Realtor & Certified Residential Appraiser. www.MyPropertyIsWorth.com
Submitted by raise michal on July 25, 2009 - 10:11am.
Some states have banned dual agency in favor of... on working with an agent or broker who represents both buyer and seller.
-----
ford ranger tail lights
Submitted by Keith Labrecque on July 25, 2009 - 4:38pm.
Barry Noble,
I think it goes way beyond wanting sincere, honest and fair representation (if that were even attainable, human nature as you ponted out, being what it is).
To Everyone:
I think the critical issue is this:
Do sellers and buyers seek to hire unbiased, neutral arbiters?
Or do they hire active advocates for their interests?
I think the latter.
Big difference, unbiased vs. advocacy. I think they seek advocates to optimize their advantage in the marketplace. That is, sellers generally seek to sell quickly for the highest obtainable price with the fewest contingencies, while buyers want speed but lowest prices and greatest protection by contingencies. Otherwise, why would agents and the NAR claim that Realtors (R) get higher prices for sellers than FSBO? And faster sales? No one would care, if personal maximization in the deal weren't important, right?
NO ONE, not even an angelic independent arbitrator, can pretend to advocate for BOTH SIDES in an inhernetly (somewhat-to-extremely) adversarial relationship and transaction. Advocacy involves playing for advantage, possibly (and probably to at least some degree) at the expense of the opposition. If the opposition knows all of what your are up to, your limits, your needs, your emotional state, your financial state and all that, can you negotiate against them effectively? I don't think so!
How can ONE agent seek to maximize the seller's advantage at the buyer's cost, while simultaneously seeking to maximimize the buyer's advantage at the seller's cost? It is by definition logically impossible. Pardon my bluntness, but only a blind fool would argue it is possible.
How can the real estate world argue otherwise? My mind boggles at the rationalizations given. Perhaps greed is a powerful thing, eh?
Or maybe I am truly missing some part of this. Maybe buyers and sellers altruistically seek only to have a happy, smooth transaction where everyone is looking out for everyone elses best interest equally as their own?
Maybe it's time for for brokers and agents in general to GET REAL. You can't have it both ways, even if there is no man-made law prohibiting the pretense of advocating for both sides. I wonder why some ambitious Attorney General hasn't investigated this logical impossibility of dual agency and similar arrangements? They had a field day with the securities industriy (fines totalling hundreds of millions of dollars) for similar (vehemently denied until proven otherwise) conflicts of interest.
This profession is thought poorly of for good reasons. Who wants to step forward and start to clean up our image? Before some hot-shot class-action lawyer or AG does it for us?
Keith Labrecque
Two Maples Properties LLC
Submitted by David Montgomery on July 26, 2009 - 4:31am.
Dual Agency should be prohibited... If licensees don't take the lead, then legislators will and we will get more controls than we desired... Could NAR prohibit dual agency under the Code of Ethics?