Letter to the Editor

Inman News, Thursday, January 21, 2010.

Inman News

Re: ‘The dual-agency double standard‘ (Jan. 21)

Dear Editor:

This article actually makes some sense of dual agency. Some attorneys do not like it, true, but generally speaking most have a jurist view. As real estate agents for buyer, seller or (both) … we are not litigators! That’s for the attorneys. In any agency situation, as a buyer you should have an attorney review any and all documents that you sign.

The agent should not be the source for legal representation. In most cases, no matter what the agency relationship is, the buyer and seller will determine the qualifications of the sale. A professional Realtor with training and experience in dual agency can guide a transaction with the utmost of integrity.

There is no guarantee that a buyer or seller representative will do much more. You must know who you are working with, inquire about their credentials, and always have legal representation. Dual agency will work very smoothly if you choose the right agent and attorney. Do some homework — you’ll be glad you did.

Bernie Hassan
Manager
Weichert Realtors Briarwood Real Estate
South Easton, Mass.

***

What’s your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a

Submitted by Paul Howard on January 22, 2010 – 5:00am.

It is hard to believe that there are still agents out there who think any consumer can do as well for themselves in a transaction as they can do with an agent acting as an advocate.

Why do you think that HUD in their recent update of their settlement cost booklet on page 6 recommends considering an ‘exclusive buyer’s agent’ for representation? (Google “hud new closing cost booklet”)

Exclusive Buyer’s Agents are advocates.

An advocate is proactive in discovering things that will give their client an advantage in negotiations of price, home repairs, alternatives.

A dual agent can NEVER act in a way that will give one side an advantage over the other.

When I represent a client I don’t want them to be equal – I want mine to have an advantage that will save them real money or get them a better house.

That is, of course, more work for me and it is still smooth for my client in almost all cases. But when I think it is appropriate I’ll still tell them to walk away and move on. A dual agent can’t do that.

You can find Exclusive Buyer’s Agents at the website of the National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents. http://www.naeba.org
or at http://wwww.facebook.com/buyersagents

Paul Howard, Broker
NJHomeBuyer.com Realty
www.facebook.com/homebuyers
Cherry Hill NJ 08002

 

Submitted by Nick Chucales on January 22, 2010 – 8:03am.

Bernie,

While I respect your right to your opinion regarding dual agency, it is this mind set that keeps the average real estate agent from being perceived as a true professional. The vast majority of agents are perceived as no better than car salesmen. You as a real estate agent have a fiduciary duty to your client, and that cannot be accomplished in dual agency. It is time to stop looking at the best way to make the most amount of money in the easiest possible way, and to start looking at what you can do to provide the most prefessional level of service to your client. It appears that Mr. Howard understands that and is a professional.

 

Submitted by Jeremy Hart on January 22, 2010 – 10:07am.

Well said, Nick.

Bernie, an attorney can’t represent both sides in a transaction, so how could they possibly suggest to a client – who’s asking them to review documentation – that it’d be okay for a real estate agent to represent both sides?

An agent shouldn’t try to be on both sides either. As a licensee, you have a responsibility – a promise – to protect your clients’ interests, whatever they may be. You can’t also promise to protect another clients’ interests in the same transaction and give full representation to both, it’s impossible.

 

Submitted by Steven Ladin on January 22, 2010 – 11:57am.

Interesting topic…

Even in commercial real estate traditionally, the role of the commercial brokerage firm has been to represent property, bring tenants or buyers to the table and negotiate a transaction in the best interest of the owner. Most brokers negotiate from both sides of the table, claiming to objectively represent an owner and a tenant or buyer in the same transaction. The pressure of retaining major listing arrangements for local and national accounts often influences the outcome of transactions within a firm.

Our firm does not believe it is possible to negotiate from both sides of the table. Because our Clients are corporate tenants and investment buyers, we work on our Clients behalf as partners, without conflict of interest and with sincere objectivity.

We have actually changed our business model and won’t accept listings from landlords because we strongly believe that working for both landlords and tenants creates potential conflicts of interest that may not be readily apparent to a Tenant.

Many commercial real estate brokerages, however, operate as “Full Service” firms. At first, this may sound good – what’s wrong with offering a full range of services? Full service brokers typically represent both landlords and tenants. For example, did you know that a commercial broker (or brokerage firm) may make double the commission amount if a tenant signs a lease in a building where its broker / brokerage firm also has a listing with the landlord? Will a broker negotiate aggressively on behalf of a tenant if this broker also has a listing agreement with a building’s landlord or is soliciting a landlord’s listing business? We think not!

Steven Ladin
Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (763) 331-3010
Fax: (763) 331-3014
11140 Highway 55, Suite F
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
Email: sladin@ladinventures.com
www.LadinVentures.com

Follow Me On Twitter: @LadinVentures

Posted via web from Ladin Ventures Posterous

Bookmark and Share