I would think it could depend on the agent. Is this a broker or if not could you talk to the broker of the office? Depends on the house, condition and price and I would defintly get my own financing thru my own bank and/or credit union. A lot of factors could play into this.

When this happens, the agent is supposed to just take care of the paper work and run offers back and forth. Their personal input should not be given. They should remain neutral. If they reveal anything about either party to the other, they are violating their relationship.

I would use it to your advantage. Negotiate through the listing agent.

Since the seller's are the ones paying the agent, I think your agent will have their interests in mind moreso than yours. I don't see it as giving you negotiating room or an advantage at all. I see you at a disadvantage. I would request your own buyer's realtor because the agent could very well encourage you to offer much higher than she knows the seller will accept to pad her 100% commission not to be shared with a buyer's agent.

The seller of the house pays the listing agent AND the buyers agent so I dont think it will matter to the seller which agent brings the offer. The bottom line is, a buyer is only going to pay so much and a seller is only going to accept so much. One agent can negotiate fairly for both sides. It really depends on what area of the US you are from. Agents are called something different in different states. In NY, this situation would be known as a Dual Agency. Which means the agent has a fiduciary relationship with both buyer and seller. The bottom line is they have to be fair to both sides. She cannot tell the seller the buyers bottom line or vice versa. Both parties have to agree to a dual agency. In 20 year of real estate, I have never had a buyer ask for a buyers agent because I had the listing on the house they were interested in. In response to Sparksals, it is illegal for an agent to encourage a buyer to make a higher offer to get a higher commission or to go higher for the seller when they are working for both sides. Alot of people think the agent will try to get the price higher to get more commission. Most don't realize that the commission on $10,000 is peanuts on most homes.

I did it once, on my first home, and wouldn't do it again. Though I think we got a very good price, being my first home, she didn't explain a lot of the buying, closing, and inspection aspects that she should have (and I didn't ask because I didn't know). She just kind of whisked me through paperwork, "sign here, oh this is just...sign here." Now that I know, there's a lot of things about that sale/close I would've done differently. I should have insisted on a final walk-thru and asked more to be fixed at the inspection. I think she just wanted to get it closed because it had been on the market for so long.

So I'd get a different agent, you never know if there's a hidden agenda somewhere and you need someone who you know is primarily there for your needs, not trying to balance both parties.

I wouldn't use the same agent either. I see no advantage to you what so ever. I would want someone who is looking out for my interests and mine alone. You don't get that from a dual agent no matter how ethical they claim they would be. NancyLouise

I feel there is always the possibility of a "hidden agenda" when you are dealing with a sales person who works strictly on commission. I think we all know that a broker has a legal obligation to get as much for the seller as possible, but there is always the temptation to "just get the place sold and earn the commission." Granted there are some pretty honest brokers out there as well as some real crooks, but it still comes down to the fact, when things are slow and someone hasn't sold a property for one, two or three months they will have the temptation to do whatever it takes to get that commission.
I know I will get blasted for these kinds of ideas, but in my many years of bying and selling, I have run into all kinds. To get licensed someone has to past a RE test, but not necessarily a test on morals.

Wow, thanks for the rapid response. This was my first post. I think I'll ask for second agent. Just easier than worrying about someone else taking advantage of the situation.

We had the same agent two years ago. We meet her when DW first say the house. She was knowledgable, personable and licensed.

In CT, you have to sign an contract agreement with an agent whether you are selling or buying. CT real estate is very regulated. This was new to us because we hadn't bought or sold in 23 years. We had to sign an agreement that spelled out the responsiblities of an agent representing both the seller and the buyer on a house.

We purchased her listing and she got the listing for our house. So instead of paying 6% commission we paid 5%. We paid a fair price for house we purchased and we got a fair price for the house we sold.

So, if you are comfortable with it - do it.

Enjoy the journey.

eal51 in western CT

linda - I understand that in the situation of dual agency, that the realtor has some ethical standards they must uphold. However, let's face it, not all RE's actually do that. Bottom line, the seller pays the commission and I would never enter into a dual agency. I would want the BA to be looking out solely for me.

I don't like dual agency either, but it just seems nowadays, that they all do it. If you ask them about it you get the speech about how they can be unbiased and I don't believe that. What they will sometimes say is that if you desire, they will give it to some other agent in their same office....that way the company still gets the full commission. I don't know how to avoid it.

You may just get a better deal because you are using the same agent. It sounds like a lot of you have come up against some pretty unethical agents. There is a lot of untrusting people out there. Im sorry to hear that because I think in the end, one bad apple creates an opinion for the whole tree. In a Dual Agency situation, the agent simply becomes a mediator between the two. They dont' give advice to the seller or the buyer on price. The bottom line is, they want both people to feel like they are getting a fair price. Most people have in their mind what they will pay and what they will sell for. I think each person has to decide if they trust the person they have been working with. I can understand if someone walks into an open house and decides they want to buy that house. They have never met the Listing agent before and have no relationship. But if you have been working with an agent for months, and that agent lists a home that she thinks might work for you, there is no reason in the world to think that she will not be fair to you if you decide to buy that home.

I have also turned away buyers because of untrusting attitudes. A woman called my office one time and didnt want to give any information or even her price range. I explained to her that I couldnt search for listings without knowing what she wanted to spend. Her response was, everytime I tell an agent what my price range is, they send me things for $20,000 higher. All they are interested in is making more commission. (Commission on $20,000 is a few hundred dollars) I said, I have no interest in showing you properties you can't afford and you should probably find someone else to work with you, because I like the people that I work with to trust me and I like to do the same.

The reason "Dual Agency" even came about was to protect the consumer. Years ago, agents would be showing properties to prospective buyers. The buyer had no idea that the agent actually worked for the seller and in the end, felt betrayed. Now, it is all supposed to be explained to buyers at the first substantial contact. I hope you all are experiencing that, because if you are not, that agent should lose their license.

Linda - what you're saying makes alot of sense for those realtors who act in an ethical manner like you do. For me, I would not feel comfortable using a realtor who signed a contractual obligation to the seller. I would also expect that if my realtor brought buyers, they would ultimately be looking out for MY interests since I gave them the listing and will be paying the full commission. I would also be leary if a realtor I contracted and I'm paying suddenly couldn't advise me on the deal because they brought the buyer. Where are my interests in that?

Sparksals

Let me just ask you one question. When you list your house, do you know what your bottom line is? The only thing your agent couldnt tell you is what a buyers bottom line is, most of the time they wouldnt know that anyway, so you arent losing anything by letting your buyer sell their own listing. Don't you think its more incentive for your agent if they have the opportunity to double their commission?

Sure it's alot of incentive for the agent to double their commission. I'm not saying all realtors are like that, Linda, by the same token, can you really say that all realtors in a dual agency situation are looking out for the interests of both parties? For me, I just could not enter into that type of situation. If I entered an open house, I absolutely would not use the listing agent because to me, they are working first and foremost for the seller.

I know what my bottom line is, but does everyone? Sure, the agent can't' tell you the buyer's bottom line, but they can sure rush through a sale that is not in the best interest of the people paying their commission. I think it would be more incentive for the realtor to get double commission and rush it through than to work for the seller first.

There are many ethical realtors out there LInda, and I know you're one of them. But I'm also realistic in my belief that it is the best interest of both parties to have someone solely on their side.

Sparksals, I really like this site because it gives me insight to the way buyers and sellers feel. I think everyone has to do what they are comfortable with. I would hope that most people trust their agent and would not have a problem entering in a dual agency situation. I have never had anyone ask for a a different agent when this situation came about. But I am seeing thru this site that there has to be a lot more unethical agents out there than I wanted to believe. For me, once I've spent some time with people, they are comfortable that I am being fair to both sides when a dual agency situation arises.

Linda, thanks for not getting your hair up on the back of your head. For me, it's not that I don't trust the agent, but I want to ensure my interests are protected with no conflict of interest. I just wouldn't be willing to take the chance when it is such a large purchase. Thanks for taking my comments in the spirit they're intended and not getting offended! Who knows, I just *might* trust YOU in a dual agency but it would take some convincing! lol

In my area of NY that would not be a dual agency. Instead the buyer would acknowlege that the agent is working for the home owner even though she is showing the buyer the house. Plain and simple, as a buyer you are not represented. However you never are unless you hire a buyers agent which are not common in my area.

I did believe that you do get a better deal if you use the listing agent. I think the agent has an incentive to work harder to make the deal happen if you are both her clients (even though she does not technically work for the buyer). I recently had the expereince where the listing agent called me back when a deal fell through on a house I liked. She only called me and anoter couple who were also her clients (strange coincidence, eh?)

I agree about the dual agency incentive, it is not always lower price, it is just the agent pushes for your deal to work. I know all agents work to make the sale close, I always know I must represent myself, I do not have a problem with that.

After a disappointing week for my family, in which we did not end up under contract on a home that seemed to be made for our needs (and with extreme diligence by our buyer's agent), I have come to the conclusion that in an area that is desirible and when there is likely to be competition, it is essential for the buyer to be represented also by the listing broker. I hate this idea, but if you really want the home, this may be the only way to go.
Sadder but wiser

Susan

Susana - why do you say that? Can you describe what happened?

If it's what I think happened - the listing broker encouraged the seller to accept the buyer's offer that she/he presented, it could very well be unethical especially if other people offered more or had no contingencies.

Can you describe the situation?

Linda - if you're still in the thread, what are the ethics regarding this type of situation? I could see how the listing agent could help their buyer bring in the best deal, but at the same time, what if the realtor used another person's offer to get their buyer to up their offer prior to presenting it to the seller?

"I have come to the conclusion that in an area that is desirible and when there is likely to be competition, it is essential for the buyer to be represented also by the listing broker. I hate this idea, but if you really want the home, this may be the only way to go. Sadder but wiser"
My point exactly, some will call it unfair or unethical, I call it reality.
The listing agent will push your offer, it is not always the price either. You may be sold as stronger financially, better close time, better terms.
I've done it many times and it works, if you want the house, go to the listing agent direct. In my present home, we went direct the listing agent, he then took off the lock box, didn't return phone calls until he had a signed contract with the seller and us. He said agents went to the door trying to view the house, the seller said that cost him $25k (we offered $25k less than asking), the agent refunded some money to him, but we got the house. This was never discussed in the short manner I posted, I've never told an agent I know he wants more commission. I just make an offer direct and tell them to make it work.
Is it unethical? How can a buyer prove that it is? Terms are many times subjective? Good for one, not another.
I know agents will talk on and on about their responsiblity to the seller, but remember they are employed to make money, pushing one buyer over another, where they get more money, it happens all the time.

cmarlin - is what the listing agent did unethical? To me, it sounds like he hindered the process for the sellers by blocking access to the home and taking the deal you presented without giving them opportunity to receive more at the same time. Sounds like he worked more for you than the person who was paying his commission.

Does sound like it and it is not surprising, I always suspected it

Sounds like you saved money by using the listing agent

Bottom line they work for themselves, not the buyer or seller

sparksal, I think the agent was working for himself more than for the seller or me. I do not think he was acting in the seller's best interest, but that was my point, I think most agents work for themselves first. How could you prove otherwise. The lockbox is tricky, I don't what was said about that. To be sure, the seller was one of the most difficult I've dealt with. The agent did quite well, he also sold the seller his own listing.

As linda117 stated, I agree that a successful dual agency is based on trust. It's just too bad that there are so many unethical agents out there.

Before I got into real estate in 1999, my DH and I bought our first home together. I used the internet as a search tool and contacted the listing agent for an appointment to view a home that was newly listed. We made an offer of $10k less and the sellers accepted our offer. They came down $5k on their asking price and the listing agent reduced his commission by $5k to make this deal work. Back then, I thought we were getting a good deal by going through the listing agent, since most homes were selling at their asking price at the time (in 1998).

During the course of the transaction, the listing agent assured us that he'd make sure the home was cleaned before close of escrow. The sellers also agreed to perform all of the repairs we requested, which weren't many. The listing agent told us that all repairs were completed but did not tell us that we were entitled to do a final walk-through (and we didn't know any better at the time; we trusted the agent). When we moved in, the house was NOT cleaned at all (it wasn't even vacuumed with pet hair all over and the drawers still had crumbs, hair and other icky stuff!) We called him about this, but I guess since escrow closed and he already got paid, his answer was that the house WAS cleaned. Another thing we realized was that a stationery sliding door panel that had a faulty seal was NOT replaced as the sellers had agreed, as the moisture was still apparent between the panes of glass.

In the end, my DH and I agreed it was just better to let this go instead of causing additional stress about the situation, as we had our hands full with other things at the time. So...yes, we did save money by going through the listing agent, but we were also poorly represented by that particular agent. Really, though, a successful dual agent transaction depends on the integrity of the agent. I'm sure if this agent had just been honest, we would have been happy clients.

When I initially meet with buyers/sellers, I always discuss the topic of dual agency upfront and if it is acceptable to them, I have them sign a form entitled "Disclosure and Consent for Representation of more than one Buyer or Seller". I've had several transactions with dual agency and did not encounter any problems at all, but I always tell my clients that I don't want to know what their top/bottom price is, just tell me what to write in the counter offer!

:),
Leilani

When I sold my mom's home, I saw that my listing agent worked very hard to try to set up a deal in which he would represent the buyer too. Even though there were other offers that were probably better. Once the verbal commitment had been made, he took the listing off the internet and took the lock box off -- no chance for back up offers.

Good luck
Susan

Quoting Saphire:

In my area of NY that would not be a dual agency. Instead the buyer would acknowlege that the agent is working for the home owner even though she is showing the buyer the house. Plain and simple, as a buyer you are not represented. However you never are unless you hire a buyers agent which are not common in my area.

Saphire: This is not a "area thing in NY". This is state law. It is 100% a dual agency situation.

Nope, not true, the Agent is working for the seller, not the buyer even when she is the only one showing the buyer the house and she is showing the buyer other houses in the area. A dual agency means she represents both equally or neutrally, not the case

There is a disclosure form that every buyer signs and it acknowleges that the agent works for the seller (whether she or her agency are the listing agents for the houses shown). I would imagine the exception would be a buyers agent but they are not common here

Saphire, you are about 10 years behind on your real estate laws. Each and every buyer now has a choice. The days of agents automatically working for the sellers are long gone. Actually, I don't even offer a commission to "sub agents" which is what you are referring to on my listings. YOU MUST Be a buyers agent for me to split my commission with you. (takes liability off my sellers for agent mistakes) If I am working with a buyer as a buyers agent and my buyer wants to buy one of my listings where I am the sellers agent, I must get a signature from both my seller and my buyer that they agree that I will become a dual agent. If one of them prefers to have their own agent, then someone from my office or another office if they choose can represent them. (I have never had this happen) The days of every agent being a sellers agent are gone a long long time ago.

Sparkels, I think what that agent did was totally unethical. In essence he/she prevented other agents from showing the property and bringing in offers on the listing that might have been better for his seller so that he/she could secure himself the sale. He/she could loose his/her license for that.

I know it happens where the listing agent tells their buyer what the other offers are so they come in higher because I have been on the other end where my buyer has lost the bid because of a "better offer" only to find out it was the listing agents own buyer.

I think its only natural for a listing agent to want to sell their own listing. Personally, this is the highlight of a sale for me. In the time that it has happened, I NEVER have told my buyer what the other offer is. I just tell them to come in with their highest and best same as I tell the other agent to tell her buyers. (its a dual agency situation, I cannot give my buyers a number, the other buyer might go higher and that would be unfair to my seller). Even though I would love to get both sides of the transaction, I also have to sleep at night and that doesnt seem fair to me. Also, these same buyers will someday sell a house, do I want them to think I was unethical so they never call me?

I do recall last year where I had this exact situation. My buyer actually came in lower than the other agents offer on my listing. When both offers were presented to the seller, they wound up choosing my offer even tho it was $7000 lower. Their reason was, they liked the people, they had a new baby and wanted to help out a young couple. Also the closing date was better for them and a few other things.

Susana, Im sorry you lost the house. I always think things happen for a reason and there is a better house out there for you. Your agent did a good job for you, she was dealing with an unethical agent. I'm willing to bet that deal doesnt close and they wind up calling you back. You just may wind up getting that house for a lower price then your original bid. :)

Nope not in my area, signed at least one of those forms last fall. Sounds like it is a local custom

Next time I am faced with one I will read it more carefully but it looked just like the ones I had a few years ago. While I do not know the ins and outs, the same agent who asked me to sign the form has shown me several houses from other agencies, I doubt she is doing it for fun

Bottom line, I always assume the agent is working for the Seller

Saphire, ok you lost me on that one. An agent showing you homes from other agencies has nothing to do with buyer agency. Its not local custom. It is NYS Law. Believe me, I am very familiar with it. I do it every day. Im not a part time agent and I have been in the business for over 20 years.

"Actually, I don't even offer a commission to "sub agents" which is what you are referring to on my listings. YOU MUST Be a buyers agent for me to split my commission with you. (takes liability off my sellers for agent mistakes) "

That was what my last comment related to.

"If I am working with a buyer as a buyers agent and my buyer wants to buy one of my listings where I am the sellers agent, I must get a signature from both my seller and my buyer that they agree that I will become a dual agent"

Nope, this happened to me recently but nothing additional was disclosed to me although technically the agent did not call herself a buyers agent. She did work damn hard to try to get me to buy the house, and it was the house that was sort of on and off the market and when it finally was ready to go, interestingly all 3 buyers who were interested were her buyers! I ended up not bidding because of sloping floors but I almost did

What happened? Nothing happened, you didnt bid. The reason all three people were hers is because the house wasnt on the market and she was the only one that knew about it. She could choose to be a sellers agent in that situation. But she HAS to disclose to you who she is representing. This is the entire reason buyer agency was started to begin with.

I know there are a few areas that are still behind in the times, (upstate NY, right around Sacandaga Lake)still does real estate like it was 30 years ago. The state would have a field day with most of the Real Estate Offices around the lake, but generally speaking, if you're in a developed area, buyers agency is very common and supposed to be used every day. For your own benefit, when you go out with an agent, AT THE FIRST meeting you should be handed an agency disclosure form. On this form, there will be explanations of sellers, buyers, designated agent and dual agency. You have the right to have a buyers agent for ANY transaction. Someone who will negotiate on your behalf and try to get you the best price and terms. This doesnt mean you can't see other offices listings. You see everything that is available on the market, your buyers agent will show them to you. The commission is still paid by the seller. You do not need to pay for a buyers agent, its a choice. Its divided up as part of the commission just like always. Maybe this will help.

http://homebuying.about.com/cs/dealingagents/a/buyers_agent.htm