New rules: buying without an agent

[Anonymous]

i work in a real estate off but am not an agent. we have not see any uptick in unprecedented buyers. I can tell you the market is extremely competitive when we work and if you have to wait on the listing agent to open a door you are going to miss out. If a house hits the market on Thursday we have a hoard of people in line waiting. Not a chance these busy listing agents have time to let someone in before the weekend is over. That’s just a fact.

so sure, wait on the listing agent. You are not going to get a house under contract in a competitive market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I already said several times I'll be telling this to clients going forward. I don't know why it bothers you so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I already said several times I'll be telling this to clients going forward. I don't know why it bothers you so much.

DP buyers and sellers are easily bothered because you work in an industry with very serious ethics concerns and loss of public trust having just lost a massive antitrust lawsuit.

I can’t believe that needed to be explained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I already said several times I'll be telling this to clients going forward. I don't know why it bothers you so much.

DP buyers and sellers are easily bothered because you work in an industry with very serious ethics concerns and loss of public trust having just lost a massive antitrust lawsuit.

I can’t believe that needed to be explained.

And now agents are claiming for safety reasons they won’t show a house to unrepresented buyers. I can’t wait for this industry to die.

[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.

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.

I think this is a useful conversation because it reveals to me how little you understand of this industry and the nature of homebuyers. Homebuyers are not a monolith. There are people who are lookie-loos. There are strong, prequalified buyers who know exactly what they want. There are people who are not serious at all and just love to waste time. I don't know how many buyers are going to show up unrepresented now, but I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house. It's just not realistic, nor is it necessary in a selling environment where I have vetted, prequalified, and represented buyers scheduling showings online and using a NAR lockbox for access. I am not saying I won't show homes to unrepresented buyers. I am saying they will have to come to the open house on a scheduled date an time, where it is a better use of my time, as well as safer. I agree it is important to be forthcoming with the seller client about this in advance. If you don't like it, don't hire someone like me. I know I would not want to work with someone like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I already said several times I'll be telling this to clients going forward. I don't know why it bothers you so much.

DP buyers and sellers are easily bothered because you work in an industry with very serious ethics concerns and loss of public trust having just lost a massive antitrust lawsuit.

I can’t believe that needed to be explained.

And now agents are claiming for safety reasons they won’t show a house to unrepresented buyers. I can’t wait for this industry to die.

Yes I have a hard time taking this concern seriously. This is an easily solved issue, without having to exclude qualified buyers from non-open house showings.

The agent is upset about industry disruption. Safety is a made-up concern with calls into question the credibility of this agent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I already said several times I'll be telling this to clients going forward. I don't know why it bothers you so much.

DP buyers and sellers are easily bothered because you work in an industry with very serious ethics concerns and loss of public trust having just lost a massive antitrust lawsuit.

I can’t believe that needed to be explained.

And now agents are claiming for safety reasons they won’t show a house to unrepresented buyers. I can’t wait for this industry to die.

You have never had to use an agent or use the industry. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from listing your house for sale by owner. In fact, there are very sophisticated websites that allow you to FSBO and your house shows up in the MLS, and the fee is nominal, like $500. It has never been necessary to use a buyers agent. People have been posting on this forum for years with simple advice on how to avoid this. Go to the open house and get an attorney to help you with the offer. The problem with people like you is that you want something for nothing. You want someone to "open doors for you" - what that means is you want access, advice, safety, convenience, and paperwork done for you, but you don't want to pay for it, or you want to pay $200 for it, and you want to demean it as you are receiving it for free.

If you don't want an agent, don't use one. You have never had to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I already said several times I'll be telling this to clients going forward. I don't know why it bothers you so much.

DP buyers and sellers are easily bothered because you work in an industry with very serious ethics concerns and loss of public trust having just lost a massive antitrust lawsuit.

I can’t believe that needed to be explained.

And now agents are claiming for safety reasons they won’t show a house to unrepresented buyers. I can’t wait for this industry to die.

Yes I have a hard time taking this concern seriously. This is an easily solved issue, without having to exclude qualified buyers from non-open house showings.

The agent is upset about industry disruption. Safety is a made-up concern with calls into question the credibility of this agent.

To clarify, it's time and safety. Not worth my time and safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I think this is a useful conversation because it reveals to me how little you understand of this industry and the nature of homebuyers. Homebuyers are not a monolith. There are people who are lookie-loos. There are strong, prequalified buyers who know exactly what they want. There are people who are not serious at all and just love to waste time. I don't know how many buyers are going to show up unrepresented now, but I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house. It's just not realistic, nor is it necessary in a selling environment where I have vetted, prequalified, and represented buyers scheduling showings online and using a NAR lockbox for access. I am not saying I won't show homes to unrepresented buyers. I am saying they will have to come to the open house on a scheduled date an time, where it is a better use of my time, as well as safer. I agree it is important to be forthcoming with the seller client about this in advance. If you don't like it, don't hire someone like me. I know I would not want to work with someone like you.

I've said this elsewhere: qualified potential buyers. You should not be expected to schedule a showing to a non-seroius buyer.

I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house.

So we can expect to see new listing agreements with this disclosure. Right?

Because "no listing agent". All agreements forthcoming will contain this disclosure. Right?

Because if we don't, then there is widespread lying about the fiduciary expectations. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I think this is a useful conversation because it reveals to me how little you understand of this industry and the nature of homebuyers. Homebuyers are not a monolith. There are people who are lookie-loos. There are strong, prequalified buyers who know exactly what they want. There are people who are not serious at all and just love to waste time. I don't know how many buyers are going to show up unrepresented now, but I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house. It's just not realistic, nor is it necessary in a selling environment where I have vetted, prequalified, and represented buyers scheduling showings online and using a NAR lockbox for access. I am not saying I won't show homes to unrepresented buyers. I am saying they will have to come to the open house on a scheduled date an time, where it is a better use of my time, as well as safer. I agree it is important to be forthcoming with the seller client about this in advance. If you don't like it, don't hire someone like me. I know I would not want to work with someone like you.

I've said this elsewhere: qualified potential buyers. You should not be expected to schedule a showing to a non-seroius buyer.

I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house.

So we can expect to see new listing agreements with this disclosure. Right?

Because "no listing agent". All agreements forthcoming will contain this disclosure. Right?

Because if we don't, then there is widespread lying about the fiduciary expectations. Right?

I'd just say "Because of the new rules, we may have people who cannot afford agents, so they will be unrepresented. It's unlikely I'll be able to run to your house on a one-off basis to show the property, and also it's not necessarily safe for me, since they are basically random strangers asking to meet me alone at a vacant property. To accommodate unrepresented buyers, I'll extend my open house hours, and I'll also prioritize anyone who seems particularly serious/ready to move forward. We can adjust this plan if traffic on the house is slow/not what we expected."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I already said several times I'll be telling this to clients going forward. I don't know why it bothers you so much.

DP buyers and sellers are easily bothered because you work in an industry with very serious ethics concerns and loss of public trust having just lost a massive antitrust lawsuit.

I can’t believe that needed to be explained.

And now agents are claiming for safety reasons they won’t show a house to unrepresented buyers. I can’t wait for this industry to die.

You have never had to use an agent or use the industry. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from listing your house for sale by owner. In fact, there are very sophisticated websites that allow you to FSBO and your house shows up in the MLS, and the fee is nominal, like $500. It has never been necessary to use a buyers agent. People have been posting on this forum for years with simple advice on how to avoid this. Go to the open house and get an attorney to help you with the offer. The problem with people like you is that you want something for nothing. You want someone to "open doors for you" - what that means is you want access, advice, safety, convenience, and paperwork done for you, but you don't want to pay for it, or you want to pay $200 for it, and you want to demean it as you are receiving it for free.

If you don't want an agent, don't use one. You have never had to.

This is only true in a but-for world where fiduciary duties are faithfully executed as expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I think this is a useful conversation because it reveals to me how little you understand of this industry and the nature of homebuyers. Homebuyers are not a monolith. There are people who are lookie-loos. There are strong, prequalified buyers who know exactly what they want. There are people who are not serious at all and just love to waste time. I don't know how many buyers are going to show up unrepresented now, but I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house. It's just not realistic, nor is it necessary in a selling environment where I have vetted, prequalified, and represented buyers scheduling showings online and using a NAR lockbox for access. I am not saying I won't show homes to unrepresented buyers. I am saying they will have to come to the open house on a scheduled date an time, where it is a better use of my time, as well as safer. I agree it is important to be forthcoming with the seller client about this in advance. If you don't like it, don't hire someone like me. I know I would not want to work with someone like you.

I've said this elsewhere: qualified potential buyers. You should not be expected to schedule a showing to a non-seroius buyer.

I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house.

So we can expect to see new listing agreements with this disclosure. Right?

Because "no listing agent". All agreements forthcoming will contain this disclosure. Right?

Because if we don't, then there is widespread lying about the fiduciary expectations. Right?

I'd just say "Because of the new rules, we may have people who cannot afford agents, so they will be unrepresented. It's unlikely I'll be able to run to your house on a one-off basis to show the property, and also it's not necessarily safe for me, since they are basically random strangers asking to meet me alone at a vacant property. To accommodate unrepresented buyers, I'll extend my open house hours, and I'll also prioritize anyone who seems particularly serious/ready to move forward. We can adjust this plan if traffic on the house is slow/not what we expected."

That's the language. I'm asking something different:

"All" listing agreements will contain language similar to this, because all listing agents are following the path you describe. Correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I think this is a useful conversation because it reveals to me how little you understand of this industry and the nature of homebuyers. Homebuyers are not a monolith. There are people who are lookie-loos. There are strong, prequalified buyers who know exactly what they want. There are people who are not serious at all and just love to waste time. I don't know how many buyers are going to show up unrepresented now, but I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house. It's just not realistic, nor is it necessary in a selling environment where I have vetted, prequalified, and represented buyers scheduling showings online and using a NAR lockbox for access. I am not saying I won't show homes to unrepresented buyers. I am saying they will have to come to the open house on a scheduled date an time, where it is a better use of my time, as well as safer. I agree it is important to be forthcoming with the seller client about this in advance. If you don't like it, don't hire someone like me. I know I would not want to work with someone like you.

I've said this elsewhere: qualified potential buyers. You should not be expected to schedule a showing to a non-seroius buyer.

I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house.

So we can expect to see new listing agreements with this disclosure. Right?

Because "no listing agent". All agreements forthcoming will contain this disclosure. Right?

Because if we don't, then there is widespread lying about the fiduciary expectations. Right?

I'd just say "Because of the new rules, we may have people who cannot afford agents, so they will be unrepresented. It's unlikely I'll be able to run to your house on a one-off basis to show the property, and also it's not necessarily safe for me, since they are basically random strangers asking to meet me alone at a vacant property. To accommodate unrepresented buyers, I'll extend my open house hours, and I'll also prioritize anyone who seems particularly serious/ready to move forward. We can adjust this plan if traffic on the house is slow/not what we expected."

That's the language. I'm asking something different:

"All" listing agreements will contain language similar to this, because all listing agents are following the path you describe. Correct?

No idea. All of this is still new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I think this is a useful conversation because it reveals to me how little you understand of this industry and the nature of homebuyers. Homebuyers are not a monolith. There are people who are lookie-loos. There are strong, prequalified buyers who know exactly what they want. There are people who are not serious at all and just love to waste time. I don't know how many buyers are going to show up unrepresented now, but I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house. It's just not realistic, nor is it necessary in a selling environment where I have vetted, prequalified, and represented buyers scheduling showings online and using a NAR lockbox for access. I am not saying I won't show homes to unrepresented buyers. I am saying they will have to come to the open house on a scheduled date an time, where it is a better use of my time, as well as safer. I agree it is important to be forthcoming with the seller client about this in advance. If you don't like it, don't hire someone like me. I know I would not want to work with someone like you.

I've said this elsewhere: qualified potential buyers. You should not be expected to schedule a showing to a non-seroius buyer.

I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house.

So we can expect to see new listing agreements with this disclosure. Right?

Because "no listing agent". All agreements forthcoming will contain this disclosure. Right?

Because if we don't, then there is widespread lying about the fiduciary expectations. Right?

I'd just say "Because of the new rules, we may have people who cannot afford agents, so they will be unrepresented. It's unlikely I'll be able to run to your house on a one-off basis to show the property, and also it's not necessarily safe for me, since they are basically random strangers asking to meet me alone at a vacant property. To accommodate unrepresented buyers, I'll extend my open house hours, and I'll also prioritize anyone who seems particularly serious/ready to move forward. We can adjust this plan if traffic on the house is slow/not what we expected."

That's the language. I'm asking something different:

"All" listing agreements will contain language similar to this, because all listing agents are following the path you describe. Correct?

No idea. All of this is still new.

All listing agreements must contain this language, because all listing agents are following the path you describe:

"I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house."

Correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I think this is a useful conversation because it reveals to me how little you understand of this industry and the nature of homebuyers. Homebuyers are not a monolith. There are people who are lookie-loos. There are strong, prequalified buyers who know exactly what they want. There are people who are not serious at all and just love to waste time. I don't know how many buyers are going to show up unrepresented now, but I guarantee you that no listing agent is going to take the time to personally meet, vet, and have coffee with every unrepresented buyer and then take them over to your house. It's just not realistic, nor is it necessary in a selling environment where I have vetted, prequalified, and represented buyers scheduling showings online and using a NAR lockbox for access. I am not saying I won't show homes to unrepresented buyers. I am saying they will have to come to the open house on a scheduled date a time, where it is a better use of my time, as well as safer. I agree it is important to be forthcoming with the seller client about this in advance. If you don't like it, don't hire someone like me. I know I would not want to work with someone like you.

Isn’t it common in other countries to only hold an open house or auction?

Seems like that’s the next step in the US market. Having agents open doors is silly and inefficient.