New rules: buying without an agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Lol its a listing agent (not employee) so they get to determine their schedule and working hours. What you are wanting for is like a bank employee sitting at their office from 9-5pm to meet with unrepresented buyers for coffee. But many agents are associated with a brokerage so they can setup meeting with their colleague who is available at buyer's schedule. They meet with and get verified by another agent who can show them the house if that's what the buyer wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Lol its a listing agent (not employee) so they get to determine their schedule and working hours. What you are wanting for is like a bank employee sitting at their office from 9-5pm to meet with unrepresented buyers for coffee. But many agents are associated with a brokerage so they can setup meeting with their colleague who is available at buyer's schedule. They meet with and get verified by another agent who can show them the house if that's what the buyer wants.

Sounds like we should move to an auction/open house model like other countries.

If you’re not even open to showing the house to potential buyers then I don’t understand what purpose you serve. You’re not an attorney either.

It seems like some sort of collusion to only agree to show a house to someone with a buyers agent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Lol its a listing agent (not employee) so they get to determine their schedule and working hours. What you are wanting for is like a bank employee sitting at their office from 9-5pm to meet with unrepresented buyers for coffee. But many agents are associated with a brokerage so they can setup meeting with their colleague who is available at buyer's schedule. They meet with and get verified by another agent who can show them the house if that's what the buyer wants.

Is there an answer to my question in there?


The question regarding fiduciary and disclosure, once again:

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:

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?

Lol its a listing agent (not employee) so they get to determine their schedule and working hours. What you are wanting for is like a bank employee sitting at their office from 9-5pm to meet with unrepresented buyers for coffee. But many agents are associated with a brokerage so they can setup meeting with their colleague who is available at buyer's schedule. They meet with and get verified by another agent who can show them the house if that's what the buyer wants.

Is there an answer to my question in there?


The question regarding fiduciary and disclosure, once again:

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?

No. Why would a listing agreement spell that out? Nothing has changed with regard to the fiduciary responsibilities of a listing agent to show the property. They are not going to take this much time with an unrepresented by her now, nor would they do so previous to the new rules. You don’t get showings on demand from the listing agent just because they have a fiduciary requirement. They will show it to you, but you might not be first in line. If you want to be first in line, get your own agent.

[Anonymous]

What will probably happen is that the seller-agent agreement will spell out the conditions under which unrepresented buyers will be shown the home: either at the open house OR upon furnishing proof of funds/lender pre-approval letter.

Maybe seller agencies will hire college students to just do lockbox duty at the cost of $20/hour for 4-5 hours per day using e-bikes. The sellers' agent doesn't need to show homes - they just need someone to chaperone potential buyers into and out of homes.

[Anonymous]

Briefly in early 2000 there was a service where on front lawn they plant a device that broadcast on radio in a certain frequency and contained a listing sheets on house. You can pull up get print out and listen in car to details of house on radio. Also had link to website. The box also had a credit card swipe feature to unlock keys if vacant house. Realtors flipped out and was short lived

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.


In NY it has ALWAYS worked this way. The seller agent did not want to share his listing and there is no dual agency rule. They literrally would not let buyer agents in unless they were forced to.

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?

Lol its a listing agent (not employee) so they get to determine their schedule and working hours. What you are wanting for is like a bank employee sitting at their office from 9-5pm to meet with unrepresented buyers for coffee. But many agents are associated with a brokerage so they can setup meeting with their colleague who is available at buyer's schedule. They meet with and get verified by another agent who can show them the house if that's what the buyer wants.

Is there an answer to my question in there?


The question regarding fiduciary and disclosure, once again:

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:

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?

Lol its a listing agent (not employee) so they get to determine their schedule and working hours. What you are wanting for is like a bank employee sitting at their office from 9-5pm to meet with unrepresented buyers for coffee. But many agents are associated with a brokerage so they can setup meeting with their colleague who is available at buyer's schedule. They meet with and get verified by another agent who can show them the house if that's what the buyer wants.

Is there an answer to my question in there?


The question regarding fiduciary and disclosure, once again:

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?

No. Why would a listing agreement spell that out? Nothing has changed with regard to the fiduciary responsibilities of a listing agent to show the property. They are not going to take this much time with an unrepresented by her now, nor would they do so previous to the new rules. You don’t get showings on demand from the listing agent just because they have a fiduciary requirement. They will show it to you, but you might not be first in line. If you want to be first in line, get your own agent.

It's a fiduciary responsibly if you have seller who wants qualified buyers given equal opportunity whether or not they have agent representation. T

Under your scheme, a buyer with the best offer + RE attorney has to wait until Sunday open house, while buyers with agents and lesser offers get access to the property on Thursday, and get to submit offers with 24 hour expiration, and the best potential buyer is sent away to view other listings and potentially go under contract.

These sellers have the right to know the listing agent is not going to show the property according to their reasonable best interests.

[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."

I would never hire a liar to sell my house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What will probably happen is that the seller-agent agreement will spell out the conditions under which unrepresented buyers will be shown the home: either at the open house OR upon furnishing proof of funds/lender pre-approval letter.

Then the question is this: how many actual sellers would prevent a buyer with proof-of-finances from viewing their listing prior to an open house, simply because they cannot provide proof of agent representation?

Would you sign this disclosure:

"I understand that under no circumstances will unrepresented buyers be provided showings outside of an open house. It does not matter if they are qualified financially. It does not matter if they have legal representation. It does not matter if they have proof of closing real estate deals. It does not matter if they are already drafting an over-ask cash offer with no contingencies. They will not be given access to your listing unless there is an open house."

[Anonymous]

Only deal with prequalified buyers
No lock box - you or someone from your office has to be in during showings
Stop cutting corners, and earn your money, listing agent. Good times of making a few clicks are over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What will probably happen is that the seller-agent agreement will spell out the conditions under which unrepresented buyers will be shown the home: either at the open house OR upon furnishing proof of funds/lender pre-approval letter.

Maybe seller agencies will hire college students to just do lockbox duty at the cost of $20/hour for 4-5 hours per day using e-bikes. The sellers' agent doesn't need to show homes - they just need someone to chaperone potential buyers into and out of homes.

You'd need to change the model for this to work. As of now, only licensed agents have access to lockboxes. This is to protect sellers by making sure that persons with access to their house have a minimum level of background screening.

[Anonymous]

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.

In this market? no. rates have really slowed things down.

Maybe in some places, but not Arlington. I just ratified a sight unseen contract for a house that is "coming soon." I have a listing that is in "coming soon" and will be on the market on Friday. I already have two sight unseen offers on it and both with shock clocks expiring at 6 pm today and 12 noon tomorrow. There are 11 showings already scheduled. We are letting the shock clocks expire and telling them to re-submit when offers are due on Tuesday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will probably happen is that the seller-agent agreement will spell out the conditions under which unrepresented buyers will be shown the home: either at the open house OR upon furnishing proof of funds/lender pre-approval letter.

Then the question is this: how many actual sellers would prevent a buyer with proof-of-finances from viewing their listing prior to an open house, simply because they cannot provide proof of agent representation?

Would you sign this disclosure:

"I understand that under no circumstances will unrepresented buyers be provided showings outside of an open house. It does not matter if they are qualified financially. It does not matter if they have legal representation. It does not matter if they have proof of closing real estate deals. It does not matter if they are already drafting an over-ask cash offer with no contingencies. They will not be given access to your listing unless there is an open house."

Exactly. It's in the seller's best interest for the listing agent to provide access to the house to qualified buyer. I'm so sick of the realtor gaslighting with inventing "problems" that aren't really problems.

If 1) the property is so hot that it will have multiple offers within a few days and a deluge of unrepresented buyers, then you hold two open houses then the seller selects from the multiple bids.

If 2) the property isn't moving quickly, then you have time to show each unrepresented buyer the house. If scenario 2, then it's clearly in the seller's best interest for the realtor to show the property because the property is sitting.

This whole faux outrage that the listing agent would be required to provide 20 individual showings within a few days isn't a real risk. If there's that much interest, then you hold a couple open houses with a due date for offers. If the property is sitting, then do your job and show the house to try to sell it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will probably happen is that the seller-agent agreement will spell out the conditions under which unrepresented buyers will be shown the home: either at the open house OR upon furnishing proof of funds/lender pre-approval letter.

Then the question is this: how many actual sellers would prevent a buyer with proof-of-finances from viewing their listing prior to an open house, simply because they cannot provide proof of agent representation?

Would you sign this disclosure:

"I understand that under no circumstances will unrepresented buyers be provided showings outside of an open house. It does not matter if they are qualified financially. It does not matter if they have legal representation. It does not matter if they have proof of closing real estate deals. It does not matter if they are already drafting an over-ask cash offer with no contingencies. They will not be given access to your listing unless there is an open house."

Exactly. It's in the seller's best interest for the listing agent to provide access to the house to qualified buyer. I'm so sick of the realtor gaslighting with inventing "problems" that aren't really problems.

If 1) the property is so hot that it will have multiple offers within a few days and a deluge of unrepresented buyers, then you hold two open houses then the seller selects from the multiple bids.

If 2) the property isn't moving quickly, then you have time to show each unrepresented buyer the house. If scenario 2, then it's clearly in the seller's best interest for the realtor to show the property because the property is sitting.

This whole faux outrage that the listing agent would be required to provide 20 individual showings within a few days isn't a real risk. If there's that much interest, then you hold a couple open houses with a due date for offers. If the property is sitting, then do your job and show the house to try to sell it.

+1

This is yet another attempt at inventing non-problems to justify unrepresented buyer discrimination.