Anonymous wrote:I would show my listings to an unrepresented buyer if they are qualified. They would have to send me a pre-approval first. Also happy to write a contract for them to sign on behalf of my client who is the seller.
I don't think this will be allowed. But this might occur.
This is referring to the requirement of a pre-approval letter prior to showing.
Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?
Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.
I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.
If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.
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. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.
That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty
Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.
DP
"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."
I thought PP explain this well:
"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."
If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.
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.
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."
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."
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?
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.
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.
No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.
Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.
Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.
DP here but it's already the listing agent's job to show the property to any prospective buyers. This isn't new. They'll just have to do it more frequently, and no I'm not paying more for that. Realtor commissions are too high as it is.
Why would they have to do it more frequently?
They wouldn't they already hold open houses and they may have additional hours when they are available to show the house. The buyer can just hire a showing agent for some $ to open the door at the buyer's convenience if the timings don't work.
The listing agent for my property better show my house to any buyer at the buyer's convenience. If I ever get wind that she breached her fiduciary to do so, then she's fired.
You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.
I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.
Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.
Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.
Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed buyer's agent.
Agree. Not a believer in leaving a key on a lock hanging on the door, either. Those can be cut off.
Okay, fine, so seems like there is general agreement that the seller will want their agent (personally or a colleague) there for a showing. That's pretty clearly listed in the contract as one of the primary jobs to be performed by the agent, right? So I still don't see the issue with them...performing the duties listed in the contract. Sure they shouldn't reasonably be expected to do a late night or early morning showing, but how commonly is that really requested? Probably the most common thing I would think is someone asking to stop by on their way home from work, or right after dinner, so say maybe 5-7 PM. That seems like it's a pretty basic part of the job, right?
I suppose 7 pm isn't too unreasonable. I would show up, have the prospective buyer sign either (1) a document acknowledging that I am not representing them, or (2) (much less preferably) a buyer's agreement and associated docs for dual representation. They could then look at the house and make a decision. Hopefully it won't be too hard to coordinate everyone's schedules (me, buyer, seller (if they are living in the house).
Sure I wouldn't mind signing a document saying you don't represent me.
Isn't coordinating schedules for showings, again, a very basic part of the job? I am still confused why this is being discussed in this manner like it's some sort of imposition or potential difficulty.
DP This all started with some idiot saying listing agents will no longer be showing homes to unrepresented buyers. I think they misread the settlement and have been sunk-cost fallacy-ing themself into a deep hole of stupid.
+1 One or more realtors have been insisting that showing unrepresented buyers the home is some sort of new (impossible to execute) responsibility when it's not.
Then they kept digging deeper and deeper insisting that if the buyer couldn't make it to the open house then they won't show the house and the buyer needs to go pay for a buyer's agent (a clear breach of fiduciary duty to the seller), or that suddenly there's a myriad of security issues (not true - agents show buyers houses all the time so use whatever existing protocols), or that now the unrepresented buyers must be represented by the listing agent to see the house (another breach of fiduciary duty to the seller), an more inane arguments.
Anytime posters prove why buyers agents aren't necessary, realtors flock to undermine with more gaslighting.
Resistance is futile. You are in denial. Also from the web: "Effective August 17th, a Realtor CANNOT show you a home unless you have signed a representation agreement with them. This INCLUDES calling the listing agent...This will be non negotiable for any real estate agent with a Realtor designation."
Yet again, complete misrepresentation of the new rule. That only means you as a BUYERS agent can't show a home to your BUYER unless you have an agreement with them, as discussed a few pages back.
There is not, and won't be, a rule against a LISTING agent showing the home to a buyer without an agent.
The law is that agents representing buyers enter into a brokerage agreement before touring a home. The law is not that buyers can not tour a home without representation. If an agent shows a house to a buyer without an agency agreement, then it must be disclosed to the buyer that the agent represents the seller and not the buyer.
Anonymous wrote:I mostly list homes for sale and have had an uptick in buyers wanting to "discuss" methods to buy from a listing agent. I tell them to come to one of my listings, I will provide them for information to write the offer, submit the offer before the deadline, and I will get back to them
It's basic.
Exactly. It's not rocket science. You send them a Docusign form of the contract with the property and sellers information filled out, and the buyer fills out the blanks/check boxes and submits it.
Anyone on here coming up with excuses or outrageous hypotheticals as to why it can't be done is being ridiculous.
Anonymous wrote:The law is that agents representing buyers enter into a brokerage agreement before touring a home. The law is not that buyers can not tour a home without representation. If an agent shows a house to a buyer without an agency agreement, then it must be disclosed to the buyer that the agent represents the seller and not the buyer.
All true, but want to clarify this isn't a law. It's a new rule being adopted per the settlement agreement. So an agent who violates it wouldn't be breaking any laws, just professional rules and could be sanctioned by NAR or local licensing groups.
Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?
Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.
I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.
If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.
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. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.
That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty
Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.
DP
"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."
I thought PP explain this well:
"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."
If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.
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.
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."
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."
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?
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.
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.
No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.
Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.
Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.
DP here but it's already the listing agent's job to show the property to any prospective buyers. This isn't new. They'll just have to do it more frequently, and no I'm not paying more for that. Realtor commissions are too high as it is.
Why would they have to do it more frequently?
They wouldn't they already hold open houses and they may have additional hours when they are available to show the house. The buyer can just hire a showing agent for some $ to open the door at the buyer's convenience if the timings don't work.
The listing agent for my property better show my house to any buyer at the buyer's convenience. If I ever get wind that she breached her fiduciary to do so, then she's fired.
You are being unreasonable. My agent, like most good ones, has more than one client. I do not expect her to only service my listing herself. She has a seasoned team to help her meet client needs.
I continue to be very confused by people apparently arguing that sellers agents shouldn't be showing their listings to prospective buyers, or that asking for a showing might be too much. Isn't that a primary part of the job? Are there really people asking for showings at say 10 PM? I doubt that that is very common.
Where did I say that? I only said that it was unreasonable to expect the specific listing agent to always be available to show the property at the buyer's convenience. They have associates who can do it if the listing agent is not available at that time.
Fair- wasn't exactly responding to your comment, more to earlier ones that make it seem like asking for a showing is potentially outside the bounds of what is to be expected from a listing agent. I agree that I don't care WHO shows a house if I am a prospective buyer- and frankly I don't need anyone to be there unless they want to be there for security reasons.
Of course you need an agent there for security reasons. As a seller, you certainly wouldn't want random people accessing your home. It would either need to be the seller's agent (or their designee), or a licensed buyer's agent.
Agree. Not a believer in leaving a key on a lock hanging on the door, either. Those can be cut off.
Okay, fine, so seems like there is general agreement that the seller will want their agent (personally or a colleague) there for a showing. That's pretty clearly listed in the contract as one of the primary jobs to be performed by the agent, right? So I still don't see the issue with them...performing the duties listed in the contract. Sure they shouldn't reasonably be expected to do a late night or early morning showing, but how commonly is that really requested? Probably the most common thing I would think is someone asking to stop by on their way home from work, or right after dinner, so say maybe 5-7 PM. That seems like it's a pretty basic part of the job, right?
I suppose 7 pm isn't too unreasonable. I would show up, have the prospective buyer sign either (1) a document acknowledging that I am not representing them, or (2) (much less preferably) a buyer's agreement and associated docs for dual representation. They could then look at the house and make a decision. Hopefully it won't be too hard to coordinate everyone's schedules (me, buyer, seller (if they are living in the house).
Sure I wouldn't mind signing a document saying you don't represent me.
Isn't coordinating schedules for showings, again, a very basic part of the job? I am still confused why this is being discussed in this manner like it's some sort of imposition or potential difficulty.
DP This all started with some idiot saying listing agents will no longer be showing homes to unrepresented buyers. I think they misread the settlement and have been sunk-cost fallacy-ing themself into a deep hole of stupid.
+1 One or more realtors have been insisting that showing unrepresented buyers the home is some sort of new (impossible to execute) responsibility when it's not.
Then they kept digging deeper and deeper insisting that if the buyer couldn't make it to the open house then they won't show the house and the buyer needs to go pay for a buyer's agent (a clear breach of fiduciary duty to the seller), or that suddenly there's a myriad of security issues (not true - agents show buyers houses all the time so use whatever existing protocols), or that now the unrepresented buyers must be represented by the listing agent to see the house (another breach of fiduciary duty to the seller), an more inane arguments.
Anytime posters prove why buyers agents aren't necessary, realtors flock to undermine with more gaslighting.
Resistance is futile. You are in denial. Also from the web: "Effective August 17th, a Realtor CANNOT show you a home unless you have signed a representation agreement with them. This INCLUDES calling the listing agent...This will be non negotiable for any real estate agent with a Realtor designation."
Yet again, complete misrepresentation of the new rule. That only means you as a BUYERS agent can't show a home to your BUYER unless you have an agreement with them, as discussed a few pages back.
There is not, and won't be, a rule against a LISTING agent showing the home to a buyer without an agent.
Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.
In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.
Pretty soon people are going to ask for the code to the house themselves. seller agents will need a lock where the code can be changed. Tech is the answer. Sonder manages.
Anonymous wrote:Pretty soon people are going to ask for the code to the house themselves. seller agents will need a lock where the code can be changed. Tech is the answer. Sonder manages.
Sellers and homeowners do not want random people going in their house by themselves.
Anonymous wrote:Pretty soon people are going to ask for the code to the house themselves. seller agents will need a lock where the code can be changed. Tech is the answer. Sonder manages.
Sellers and homeowners do not want random people going in their house by themselves.
Fair. Every other industrialized country has figured out how to make it work, I am sure we can do it! One crazy idea- the sellers agent or colleague is...at the house for the showing.
Anonymous wrote:Pretty soon people are going to ask for the code to the house themselves. seller agents will need a lock where the code can be changed. Tech is the answer. Sonder manages.
Sellers and homeowners do not want random people going in their house by themselves.
Fair. Every other industrialized country has figured out how to make it work, I am sure we can do it! One crazy idea- the sellers agent or colleague is...at the house for the showing.
I think several posters are in agreement here, the question is when do these showings occur? Some posters are saying they need pre-approval or some sort of verification before showing the house. Before this change, there were minimal unrepresented buyers and they just came to the open house. Now there is an influx of such "buyers" and hence the need for more thorough vetting.
Anonymous wrote:Pretty soon people are going to ask for the code to the house themselves. seller agents will need a lock where the code can be changed. Tech is the answer. Sonder manages.
Sellers and homeowners do not want random people going in their house by themselves.
Turn on the nest cams and say hi to the buyers. Tell them the front door camera has audio if they have questions. Vetted buyers will be on their best behavior because markets are still tight and at the end of the day they want the house.
Anonymous wrote:I was not in a contract to buy a property with my RE agent but the demand for money just keeps on going up. We decided to put an offer on a property that we really like. We verbally spoke before about the fees and commissions and she agreed that there won't be any additional charges. When I saw her contract, there were about $2700 worth of additional fees on top of she getting her commission of 2%(for $1.3M property). She disclosed that additional charges are for documentation, administrative and travel fees to the closing office, etc. I asked her to take it off and she refused so I decided to not use her and found someone who gives some credit back from his commission. I don't understand why these agents need to start charging additional fees when commission is already healthy?
Good for you! I'm doing the same. Turned down two agents who refused to budge on 2% fee. Interviewed 3 others, one offered 1%, one offered hourly rate, and still waiting to hear from the last one. Not sure if this was a coincidence but the two who insisted on 2% were older (60+), the kind of realtors who don't really need the money or worry about building a career, just coasting on established reputation/monopoly in a certain neighborhood. Most younger, mid-profession realtors will negotiate if they dont want to be competed out.
CHANGE IS COMING. THANK GOD!!!
Smart agents will charge the hourly fee without having it contingent on closing. So, if they're charging $200 an hour and they spend 10 hours with them, you will owe them $2,000 whether or not you ever put an offer on a property. That's where I see this settling: Hourly billing like a lawyer, likely with a retainer collected up front.
This will also reduce the casual shopping.
Keep in mind a lot of them will collect that hourly fee from companies relocating employees, etc.
So $416k/year? And they can’t answer basic questions about housing
If I'm paying someone $200/hour, they better have a lot more letters after their name than "B.A."
As a teacher with an advanced degree (who makes less than half of that), I cannot pay someone with a high school diploma (which is what many of them have) $200 an hour. I don't think it's rocket science to get the RE licensure.
It’s harder than you think and actually involves a lot of weird math
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}