New rules: buying without an agent

[Anonymous]

Want to add that it may help if you can show you are a legit buyer. I have proof of funds ready for cash offer up to 1.2 million. Almost all seller agents whom I have reached out to directly responded in the hour and showed me the house the same day, before the open house. So I have not been “disadvantaged” in any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a seller, do I expect the list agent to open my house to a buyer whenever a buyer wants to see my house, assuming my house is empty, under the current regulations?

Yes, the listing agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller to act in the seller's best interests to sell the house. This clearly includes showing the house to a potential buyer.

Don't derail this topic with ridiculous, unlikely scenarios like what if the buyer wants to see it at 2 AM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the time you file a complaint with the state licensing board, the house will be sold. Why would you retain a lawyer when you can fill out a form on line to make the complaint.

Better way: if the listing agent refuses to show the house, explain to her that she is violating her fiduciary duties to the seller and you will contact the seller directly to explain his or her rights under the listing agreement including cancelling the listing. If agent still refuses, submit an offer contingent on you having access to the house.

This.

+100
I haven’t found this to be necessary in this area though. Most agents are professional and care about getting the house sold and want to show to as many interested buyers as possible. I’ve seen properties in NWDC and Arlington without any issues. They have been responsive.

I've never had a problem with asking a listing agent to show me the house either, although this was last year (pre settlement).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question. If a listing agent puts a NAR lockbox on the property does that meet the fiduciary showing obligation?

Of course not. The listing agent needs to actually show the house to buyers because the buyers have no access to the lockbox.

It's unfortunate that so many realtors are coming to this board with these outlandish "concerns" to resist complying with legal requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:agents do a lot of shady stuff and don't let sellers know what they are doing.

This is unfortunately true. We have a second home property for sale, and we don't actually know what our listing agent is doing. We're not there for a buyer to knock on the door and tell us that she refused to show the property to them.

I'm hoping that she wants to sell it to collect her commission, but she's already tried some shady stuff since this new settlement. 99.99% of realtors are very corrupt. Most buyers and sellers just don't catch on.

[Anonymous]

I think access is an interesting issue. A listing agent has to show the property, but they don't have to do it on your schedule. I truly don't have time to show listings to every unrepresented buyer in onesies and twosies. Also, there are safety issues in play, and I think agents need to be careful about meeting people they have never met, alone, in a vacant house. For my next listings, I'll probably increase open house frequency and length in order to accommodate more unrepresented buyers. If I have good traffic from represented buyers, you'll have to wait for the open house if you are not represented, so if it's a good house, you'll likely miss out. The gold standard is going to be the represented buyer who is paying their own agent. So, basically, the buyer who is willing to eat one more expensive fee in order to get the house. Sorry buyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think access is an interesting issue. A listing agent has to show the property, but they don't have to do it on your schedule. I truly don't have time to show listings to every unrepresented buyer in onesies and twosies. Also, there are safety issues in play, and I think agents need to be careful about meeting people they have never met, alone, in a vacant house. For my next listings, I'll probably increase open house frequency and length in order to accommodate more unrepresented buyers. If I have good traffic from represented buyers, you'll have to wait for the open house if you are not represented, so if it's a good house, you'll likely miss out. The gold standard is going to be the represented buyer who is paying their own agent. So, basically, the buyer who is willing to eat one more expensive fee in order to get the house. Sorry buyers.

How does this benefit the seller?

Absence of a buyer agent does not make a stronger offer less strong in the eyes of the seller; it's only if the seller expresses a hesitancy to take a stronger offer from an unrepresented buyer and directs you to show accordingly.

By your comments, you as a listing agent are pre-deciding this for your sellers. This is not your decision to make.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry buyers.

I'm feel sorry for your clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think access is an interesting issue. A listing agent has to show the property, but they don't have to do it on your schedule. I truly don't have time to show listings to every unrepresented buyer in onesies and twosies. Also, there are safety issues in play, and I think agents need to be careful about meeting people they have never met, alone, in a vacant house. For my next listings, I'll probably increase open house frequency and length in order to accommodate more unrepresented buyers. If I have good traffic from represented buyers, you'll have to wait for the open house if you are not represented, so if it's a good house, you'll likely miss out. The gold standard is going to be the represented buyer who is paying their own agent. So, basically, the buyer who is willing to eat one more expensive fee in order to get the house. Sorry buyers.

How does this benefit the seller?

Absence of a buyer agent does not make a stronger offer less strong in the eyes of the seller; it's only if the seller expresses a hesitancy to take a stronger offer from an unrepresented buyer and directs you to show accordingly.

By your comments, you as a listing agent are pre-deciding this for your sellers. This is not your decision to make.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry buyers.

I'm feel sorry for your clients.

I am not pre-deciding anything. I am saying unrepresented buyers have to wait for the open house, and if my client decides to take another offer before then, the unrepresented buyer will miss out.

[Anonymous]

NP - I think buyers agents will remain useful for access in competitive markets because they can access the lockbox; we looked for a house a few years ago and there were houses that when first listed, 15min showings were back to back all day. A listing agent has a fiduciary duty to all their sellers, so if they already have an open house scheduled for sat/sun, I could see them putting more priority on working with their other clients that Thirs/Friday and letting buyer have their agents show the house bc unrepresented buyers can wait for the open house. Which makes sense, bc you get what you pay for; I would expect in that case buyers have an hourly or flat fee per house with their agent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think access is an interesting issue. A listing agent has to show the property, but they don't have to do it on your schedule. I truly don't have time to show listings to every unrepresented buyer in onesies and twosies. Also, there are safety issues in play, and I think agents need to be careful about meeting people they have never met, alone, in a vacant house. For my next listings, I'll probably increase open house frequency and length in order to accommodate more unrepresented buyers. If I have good traffic from represented buyers, you'll have to wait for the open house if you are not represented, so if it's a good house, you'll likely miss out. The gold standard is going to be the represented buyer who is paying their own agent. So, basically, the buyer who is willing to eat one more expensive fee in order to get the house. Sorry buyers.

How does this benefit the seller?

Absence of a buyer agent does not make a stronger offer less strong in the eyes of the seller; it's only if the seller expresses a hesitancy to take a stronger offer from an unrepresented buyer and directs you to show accordingly.

By your comments, you as a listing agent are pre-deciding this for your sellers. This is not your decision to make.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry buyers.

I'm feel sorry for your clients.

I am not pre-deciding anything. I am saying unrepresented buyers have to wait for the open house, and if my client decides to take another offer before then, the unrepresented buyer will miss out.

Unless your client decides unrepresented buyers need to wait, then you are deciding. It's not your decision.

You can decide this prior to your client agreement, disclose it, and allow your client to hire someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think access is an interesting issue. A listing agent has to show the property, but they don't have to do it on your schedule. I truly don't have time to show listings to every unrepresented buyer in onesies and twosies. Also, there are safety issues in play, and I think agents need to be careful about meeting people they have never met, alone, in a vacant house. For my next listings, I'll probably increase open house frequency and length in order to accommodate more unrepresented buyers. If I have good traffic from represented buyers, you'll have to wait for the open house if you are not represented, so if it's a good house, you'll likely miss out. The gold standard is going to be the represented buyer who is paying their own agent. So, basically, the buyer who is willing to eat one more expensive fee in order to get the house. Sorry buyers.

How does this benefit the seller?

Absence of a buyer agent does not make a stronger offer less strong in the eyes of the seller; it's only if the seller expresses a hesitancy to take a stronger offer from an unrepresented buyer and directs you to show accordingly.

By your comments, you as a listing agent are pre-deciding this for your sellers. This is not your decision to make.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry buyers.

I'm feel sorry for your clients.

I am not pre-deciding anything. I am saying unrepresented buyers have to wait for the open house, and if my client decides to take another offer before then, the unrepresented buyer will miss out.

Why? Can’t they use the Redfin app?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think access is an interesting issue. A listing agent has to show the property, but they don't have to do it on your schedule. I truly don't have time to show listings to every unrepresented buyer in onesies and twosies. Also, there are safety issues in play, and I think agents need to be careful about meeting people they have never met, alone, in a vacant house. For my next listings, I'll probably increase open house frequency and length in order to accommodate more unrepresented buyers. If I have good traffic from represented buyers, you'll have to wait for the open house if you are not represented, so if it's a good house, you'll likely miss out. The gold standard is going to be the represented buyer who is paying their own agent. So, basically, the buyer who is willing to eat one more expensive fee in order to get the house. Sorry buyers.

How does this benefit the seller?

Absence of a buyer agent does not make a stronger offer less strong in the eyes of the seller; it's only if the seller expresses a hesitancy to take a stronger offer from an unrepresented buyer and directs you to show accordingly.

By your comments, you as a listing agent are pre-deciding this for your sellers. This is not your decision to make.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry buyers.

I'm feel sorry for your clients.

I am not pre-deciding anything. I am saying unrepresented buyers have to wait for the open house, and if my client decides to take another offer before then, the unrepresented buyer will miss out.

Unless your client decides unrepresented buyers need to wait, then you are deciding. It's not your decision.

You can decide this prior to your client agreement, disclose it, and allow your client to hire someone else.

Yes, for new listings I'll talk to the client beforehand so they understand and are comfortable. If we have good traffic on the house, I'll tell unrepresented people to wait for the open house. A seller who respects my time and personal safety should not have any problem with this

[Anonymous]

Regarding safety:

"Also, there are safety issues in play, and I think agents need to be careful about meeting people they have never met"

Disclose to sellers prior to your agreement they'll need to provide a security guard for you to show the listing to unrepresented qualified buyers. The seller can sign with you, and pay for security. That is their choice. Or sellers can sign with another listing agent who does not require this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding safety:

"Also, there are safety issues in play, and I think agents need to be careful about meeting people they have never met"

Disclose to sellers prior to your agreement they'll need to provide a security guard for you to show the listing to unrepresented qualified buyers. The seller can sign with you, and pay for security. That is their choice. Or sellers can sign with another listing agent who does not require this.

This is hysterical.

A buyers agent previously would show a house to a buyer without anyone else there.

This is no different.

If now you’re unwilling to show a house without a security guard or other agent attending then you should have had this same stance 5 years ago.

You’re grasping as straws here as to why someone needs to pay 2% to let them into a house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think access is an interesting issue. A listing agent has to show the property, but they don't have to do it on your schedule. I truly don't have time to show listings to every unrepresented buyer in onesies and twosies. Also, there are safety issues in play, and I think agents need to be careful about meeting people they have never met, alone, in a vacant house. For my next listings, I'll probably increase open house frequency and length in order to accommodate more unrepresented buyers. If I have good traffic from represented buyers, you'll have to wait for the open house if you are not represented, so if it's a good house, you'll likely miss out. The gold standard is going to be the represented buyer who is paying their own agent. So, basically, the buyer who is willing to eat one more expensive fee in order to get the house. Sorry buyers.

How does this benefit the seller?

Absence of a buyer agent does not make a stronger offer less strong in the eyes of the seller; it's only if the seller expresses a hesitancy to take a stronger offer from an unrepresented buyer and directs you to show accordingly.

By your comments, you as a listing agent are pre-deciding this for your sellers. This is not your decision to make.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry buyers.

I'm feel sorry for your clients.

I am not pre-deciding anything. I am saying unrepresented buyers have to wait for the open house, and if my client decides to take another offer before then, the unrepresented buyer will miss out.

Why? Can’t they use the Redfin app?

Yes but they then need to pay $150 service fee and these are cheap buyers who will end up nickeling and diming the seller. The unrepresented buyer only works in strong buyer markets where they have leverage to bid low and pay as little as possible.