Tired buyer's agent
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+1 The seller's agent can - and must - still show the property to a buyer. The buyer's agent needs the representation agreement to avoid confusion about commission. Just get rid of buyer's agents and there's no problem. |
Anonymous
Sounds great theoretically. But that's not quite how it works. The practical reality is that Buyers and Sellers call and text their agents 24/7 and seem to go ballistic or have mini-meltdowns when they cannot reach them. Maybe not with this group of clearly elite Buyers and Sellers but for "the other half" of struggling Buyers and Sellers getting to closing can feel like a house of cards, so much riding on lining up everything to get that 1 perfect property under contract and then so much riding on closing on or selling that 1 specific property. It can be an extremely stressful timeframe for many Buyers and Sellers. A good agent softens blows and takes the arrows. All kinds of negotiation and finessing goes on behind the scenes by an agent to lock in a property and then to ensure a peaceful transaction that they may never really tell the client about or give them the play by play on... So many personalities for the agent to navigate as well. Think about 2 business partner sellers who suddenly can't seem to agree on anything; or a separating couple who stop speaking to each other during a transaction; or 4 heirs with very different ideas; out of state Sellers; or a property with DC tenant issues. An agent can be in the middle of all that drama trying to make everyone happy because everyone has to sign off on every single thing. It is not for the faint of heart. That's for sure. But yes, might not be a bad idea for there to be some sort of a flat fee commission CAP on million dollar and up commissions. |
Anonymous
Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear. |
Anonymous
No because you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the new rule. The new rule doesn't prevent a SELLER'S agent from showing the property to an unrepresented buyer. It prevents a BUYER's agent to show a property to their own buyer, until they have an agreement between them. This is because in the past one of the issues was that people would "engage" a buyers agent, but not actually sign any representation agreement. So dealing with who was actually representing the buyer, who would get the fee portion, etc was very unclear. That's what's being required now. |
Anonymous
This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent. Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer: "The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first." |
Anonymous
Less than half. More like 1 or 2 buyers out of 10. But yes your statement of value for agents in these cases applies to this buyer pool. |
Anonymous
| It's crazy how agents are (intentionally or unintentionally) inventing new rules. As PPs pointed out, there is absolutely no requirement for a buyer to have an agent. But if the buyer does have an agent, there must be a written agreement with that agent -- this is a good thing because it makes clear upfront how much the buyer needs to pay their agent. |
Anonymous
I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web... "I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all." |
Anonymous
If I'm a buyer, I'd rather just walk and find somewhere else because all of your scenario would lead me to question how well the property was maintained. Going through my home purchases, our first was bought from a military family with orders and could not have been simpler, our second was a couple moving to a larger home in the same area. There was a bit of haggling over the inspection report that was resolved in 5 minutes when we spoke directly (the agents hated each other, we would have been better off without one); we still chat when we see each other at the neighborhood pool. Our current house was purchased from a retiree with no issues at all. I know there are cases where one side or the other is unreasonable, but that has not been what I've seen |
Anonymous
What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties? |
Anonymous
Correction: ..."their specific Listing"... |
Anonymous
What "upfront agreement" would the seller require of a buyer to view the property they are selling? Proof of financing? And that dual agency lawsuit fear is non-sense. |
Anonymous
The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe. |
Anonymous
So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent). That's the same a refusing. |
Anonymous
If they buyer is saying they don't want representation and the seller's agent refuses, they better hope the seller doesn't find out because that's a clear breach of their duty |