New rules: buying without an agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What "legal requirements" are you speaking of?

You do realize the only thing the NAR settlement did was ban listing buyer agent compensation on the MLS, right? That's it. Nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I hope you’re letting sellers know you’re refusing to show the property.

If I’m paying an agent I expect them to show the house to anyone who asks. I want to sell the house and no one should have to wait until an open house to see it if I’m paying an agent.

What you describe sounds unethical and another form of collusion. You also run the risk of making everything worse for a sellers agent as well. If all that is required is an open house then can’t I pay someone $500 to host an open house? Then an attorney assists with the contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is a great opportunity for sellers with listing agents who will open the listing to all qualified potential buyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have no stake in this but it's very different. A buyer agent presumably already has a relationship with a client. A listing agent is essentially being cold called by people they've never met. It's not the same thing.

The safety concern might be overblown, but there's some basis in reality. https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/real-estate-agent-murders

It took more than a decade to find the killer of Nancy Dunning in Alexandria (she was killed by a serial killer).

So, there's some risk in the profession. Introducing an element of randomness to the equation probably heightens that risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't write the weird thing about the security guard. At present, when I show a home, I am working with my buyers, who I have met and we have mutually interviewed. Or I am running an open house in the middle of the day with an unlocked door and people coming in and out, and signage. I take dozens of call from unknown people weekly and answer questions about property, but I do not, as a regular course of business, have to meet unvetted strangers at a vacant property. So, I won't be doing that, and my clients will know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP I'm illustrating how ridiculous this agent is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP I'm illustrating how ridiculous this agent is.

I don't care what you pay your buyer's agent. I am just telling you (and my clients going forward) that I am not opening a door for you without an agent. You can wait for the open house or you can pay an agent to open the door. My time and safety are as valuable as yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't write the weird thing about the security guard. At present, when I show a home, I am working with my buyers, who I have met and we have mutually interviewed. Or I am running an open house in the middle of the day with an unlocked door and people coming in and out, and signage. I take dozens of call from unknown people weekly and answer questions about property, but I do not, as a regular course of business, have to meet unvetted strangers at a vacant property. So, I won't be doing that, and my clients will know that.

What is preventing you from meeting and interviewing a potential buyer without a buyers agent?

You don't need to meet in a dark alley or vacant house. A coffee shop or office. You know, use common sense?

You are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP I'm illustrating how ridiculous this agent is.

I don't care what you pay your buyer's agent. I am just telling you (and my clients going forward) that I am not opening a door for you without an agent. You can wait for the open house or you can pay an agent to open the door. My time and safety are as valuable as yours.

I hope you’re disclosing this to sellers. I’d be unhappy if my agent were unwilling to show my house to a potential buyer.

If I’m selling my house and paying an agent I’d expect any and all buyers to be allowed to see the house.

I’m not surprised by what you share though. I’m not convinced all offers get shown to sellers.

You’re proving the fact that you’re not working in the best interest of the seller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP I'm illustrating how ridiculous this agent is.

I don't care what you pay your buyer's agent. I am just telling you (and my clients going forward) that I am not opening a door for you without an agent. You can wait for the open house or you can pay an agent to open the door. My time and safety are as valuable as yours.

It's not unsafe to interview a potential qualified buyer in a controlled, public setting. You are being silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are worse than used car salesmen. "she's already tried some shady stuff since this new settlement." what has she done so far please let us know what to look out for. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP I'm illustrating how ridiculous this agent is.

I don't care what you pay your buyer's agent. I am just telling you (and my clients going forward) that I am not opening a door for you without an agent. You can wait for the open house or you can pay an agent to open the door. My time and safety are as valuable as yours.

Then you are not doing your job. I bet you won't tell your sellers this now will you? Shady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you pay the commission to the sellers agent? Do they have your best interest at hand of they are trying to get commission on both ends? Anyone ever do this?

They absolutely do not have the buyers best interest at hand and absolutely will get a better deal for the seller

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Contact the listing agent. If they refuse, report them. Consider retaining an attorney, just in case.

They won’t refuse but they will require you to sign a buyer agreement with them

Why? I’ve bought many houses without an agent. I am currently selling one and the buyer does not have an agent.

I’ll just get an attorney to look over the contract. Saves so much money!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

They didn't give you the total run around? Asking about your $ or your lack of sellers agent? That's been my experience trying it that way.