Full disclosure on dual agency
Letter to the Editor
By Inman News, Friday, March 5, 2010.Re: 'Slamming dual agency' (March 4)
Dear Editor:
There is no issue with disclosed dual agency. We practice disclosed dual agency everyday. One hundred percent of the time the seller saves money. It's pretty simple. Don't ever tell anyone what you will take or how much you will pay.
The rest is standardized in an agreement of sale. In most dual-agency cases the commission is discounted. Dual agency did not bring the country down. Greedy mortgage brokers stripping equity and inflating appraisals did that.
Michael DiDomenico
Broker
John Matthew Inc. GMAC Real Estate
Devon, Pa.
***
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.
You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Nick Chucales on March 5, 2010 - 4:39am.
Michael,
I don't recall anyone posting that Dual Agency "brought" the country down. But since you feel compelled to bring the subject up and point fingers at lenders and appraisers let me say that I personally witnessed my share of Realtors that were just as culpable. I have seen lenders qualify a buyer for a $300,000 loan, but the buyer has already stated that their budget only allows for a home in the $200,000 price range based on payments. Yet the realtor insists on showing the more expensive homes, the buyer becomes enamored with the bigger more expensive homes and ends up buying what they know is out of their price range. Another scenario I saw a lot was agents "under listing" homes so they could say they sold them in under xx days, or the opposite allowing a buyer to purchase a home that is over priced because it equates to a bigger commission. I also heard from more than one builder during the "housing boom" that they see the realtor at the initial meeting (if they came at all) and then at the closing (in fact I have friend that is going through this now) the agent isn't seen or heard from in between. Just remember the old adage, "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
Nick Chucales
NMC Consultants
Submitted by Paul Howard on March 5, 2010 - 5:24am.
The writer of the article, Michael, doesn't appear to be very careful with words. Saying the seller saves money 100% of the time with dual agency is a little broad. It may be true that you discount your commission with dual agency 100% of the time (as you should since you can't act as an advocate and are merely a clerk doing paperwork). That does not necessarily equate to savings for the seller - or anyone else. I am quite confident that I save buyers more than my commission in virtually every transaction and I don't need to discount my commission to do it. A dual agent can't even try to do that. If the only value you can bring to a transaction is a cut of your commission I don't see why a consumer would want your services.
Paul Howard, Broker
NJHomeBuyer.com Realty
Cherry Hill NJ 08002
Submitted by Larry Douglas McGee on March 14, 2010 - 11:23am.
This never ending discussion of Dual Agency is not about disclosure or commissions. Rather, it is about perceptions. Most humans have difficulty with the idea of anyone fairly representing opposing sides in any transaction, be it real estate or livestock.
Larry D. McGee, CRB,CRS
theberkshiregroup.com
The Berkshire Group, Realtors