irvinerealtor
Well-known member
Do you know if the listing agent agreed to reduce his/her commission for that sale, to make the net offer better?USCTrojanCPA said:
Listings that pique my interest... feedback?
- Thread starter ps99472
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
The custom report that I've used in the past only specifies the selling agent if you search by agent, so you'd have to search the specific agent to know. If Redfin is narrowing it down, that would be immensely helpful to get more real-time info (instead of having to wait for sales to close). Thank you!
-IR2
where?? listing below is in backup offer and doesnt have info on the buyer agent. i have never seen listings in OC show the buyer agent info until it closes
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Tustin/15202-Covington-St-92782/home/12249190
A custom report can be set-up to show all agents associated with a transaction (listing/co-listing, selling/co-selling agent), including based on whatever criteria one wants to specify. I pull backups/pendings to keep current on property statuses with a custom search, then output to a custom report. Doesn't matter who the agents are, though some agents don't select a selling agent right away, but that seems fairly rare.
Let me amend something in my first post: I stated 'I have always seen double-ending as a complete violation of ones fiduciary obligation'. I should not have been so black-and-white with such a broad statement. There are times when representing both sides is appropriate, but should never, ever, be used simply to create additional commissions to an agent.
I still hold though that the goal of a listing agent, indeed their legal fiduciary obligation, should be to maximize the net proceeds to the seller(s), which can include negotiating price, terms, and conditions to include the selling price, request for repairs, etc. while limiting the legal exposure of the seller(s) through complete disclosure of all material facts associated with the home.
who is the legal fiduciary obligation to if the seller has no net proceeds and doesnt see a penny regardless of what the property closes for? most of the properties we are looking at are short sales and the seller doesnt care one bit about the property selling price. yet, its the seller that hires the RE agent and not the bank. i have seen fraud because of this odd relationship. i think DRE needs to address this issue.
in short sales, banks should hire the RE agent and the agent should do their best to get the most for the bank
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/56-Boulder-Creek-Way-92602/home/4792365
Do you see below the "Listing Notes" the "Selling Office"? That's the DRE real estate license number of the buyer's broker. Then under "School Information" you'll see "Selling Agent" and that has the buyer's agent's DRE real estate license number.
This is exactly my concern as well. This is the type of scenario where it makes sense for the selling agent to only present offers to the bank from buyers that they can represent as well. It's no coincidence that the Sandro/Monica duo have many dual agency transactions on short sales.
I think where it gets cloudy is in a short sale, after all offers are presented to the seller, which ones get presented to the bank for approval?
usctrojancpa
Well-known member
There aren't many agents who are willing to offer a credit to get a deal done. The fact that he stalled on my offer for over a week was enough to know what really happened. As an agent he was supposed to present all offers but I guess he forgot about fundamental requirements because the change of double dipping got in the way. I wonder what the bank would have thought of his little tactic.IrvineRealtor said:
irvinerealtor
Well-known member
@USC - Respectfully, I am disagreeing with you.
I'm sure at this point you see what my argument is... unless you're a party to the transaction, it is impossible to"know what really happened."
There are an innumerable collection of iterations that could have led to the eventual outcome of agent representing both parties fairly, besides the few that I'd mentioned above. There are a great deal of unknowns and uncertainty for each transaction.
I recall that you had written before that you'd worked as a dual agent before in some instances, and I don't assume that you'd done anything illegal or unfair to either party in those cases. A quote from you is here:
Absolutely, there are some bad apples out there. But to assume first that someone is putting their license and livelihood on the line for a single transaction is jumping to a shaky conclusion, at best.
My advice to buyers and sellers alike is that it is important to know who you're working with ahead of time, and what the possible advantages/disadvantages are. Everybody's going to have different hotpoints or priorities. Work with someone you trust is going to help you get what you want. Caveat emptor.
-IrvineRealtor
I'm sure at this point you see what my argument is... unless you're a party to the transaction, it is impossible to"know what really happened."
There are an innumerable collection of iterations that could have led to the eventual outcome of agent representing both parties fairly, besides the few that I'd mentioned above. There are a great deal of unknowns and uncertainty for each transaction.
I recall that you had written before that you'd worked as a dual agent before in some instances, and I don't assume that you'd done anything illegal or unfair to either party in those cases. A quote from you is here:
USCTrojanCPA said:
Absolutely, there are some bad apples out there. But to assume first that someone is putting their license and livelihood on the line for a single transaction is jumping to a shaky conclusion, at best.
My advice to buyers and sellers alike is that it is important to know who you're working with ahead of time, and what the possible advantages/disadvantages are. Everybody's going to have different hotpoints or priorities. Work with someone you trust is going to help you get what you want. Caveat emptor.
-IrvineRealtor
irvinerealtor
Well-known member
LongtimeOCRes said:
The custom report that I've used in the past only specifies the selling agent if you search by agent, so you'd have to search the specific agent to know. If Redfin is narrowing it down, that would be immensely helpful to get more real-time info (instead of having to wait for sales to close). Thank you!
-IR2
where?? listing below is in backup offer and doesnt have info on the buyer agent. i have never seen listings in OC show the buyer agent info until it closes
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Tustin/15202-Covington-St-92782/home/12249190
LongtimeOCRes
New member
IrvineRealtor said:
A custom report can be set-up to show all agents associated with a transaction (listing/co-listing, selling/co-selling agent), including based on whatever criteria one wants to specify. I pull backups/pendings to keep current on property statuses with a custom search, then output to a custom report. Doesn't matter who the agents are, though some agents don't select a selling agent right away, but that seems fairly rare.
Let me amend something in my first post: I stated 'I have always seen double-ending as a complete violation of ones fiduciary obligation'. I should not have been so black-and-white with such a broad statement. There are times when representing both sides is appropriate, but should never, ever, be used simply to create additional commissions to an agent.
I still hold though that the goal of a listing agent, indeed their legal fiduciary obligation, should be to maximize the net proceeds to the seller(s), which can include negotiating price, terms, and conditions to include the selling price, request for repairs, etc. while limiting the legal exposure of the seller(s) through complete disclosure of all material facts associated with the home.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
So these "custom reports" on Redfin are available to agents? Interesting.
usctrojancpa
Well-known member
We will have to agree to disagree on the matter. I've been around the block enough times to know that transaction was not done on the up and up so let's leave it at that. To think that there aren't many agents out there who will do whatever they need to do (including violating the best standards of being a realtor and the best interests of their clients) to earn a bigger commission is a bit naive. Greed is a very powerful influence that many agents can't resist, especially when you are taking about 5 figure commision amounts that we have here in Orange County.
Btw, I'm curious...why are you being so defensive and trying to stand up for that realtor? I'm of the belief that the compensation structre for realtors needs to change in order to better align the interests of the realtors with their clients. I would be all for bringing back the rule that agents cant not be a dual agent because it would reduce the amount of funny stuff that happens behind the scenes. Since you quoted me, I'll provide a link to your realtor facebook webpage (one of the forum members provided me yesterday) and your post on Feb. 7th regarding being a dual agent on your Streamwood listing:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Scott-Gunther-Real-Estate/104323206301590
Seems like you like you are bragging about it and was a bit distrubing to me. I make me think...how hard did you try to bridge the gap that $140k offer to get the transaction done or were you hoping in the back of your mind that it didn't work out and you'd be able to have a buyer come along that you would represent to double dip on the commission? From that post, I makes a little more sense as to why you are defending that other agent.
I did have an opportunity to work as a dual agent on one occasion and I was basically going to earn 1/2 of what a dual agent would have made because I was willing to scarifice a good amount of commission to bridge the gap between the seller and buyer to get a deal done that both sides were happy with. I'm sure 90%+ of agents would not do what I was offering to do. I've always been of the mindset to give a little now and benefit a lot more later, plus it creates good karma too.
Btw, I'm curious...why are you being so defensive and trying to stand up for that realtor? I'm of the belief that the compensation structre for realtors needs to change in order to better align the interests of the realtors with their clients. I would be all for bringing back the rule that agents cant not be a dual agent because it would reduce the amount of funny stuff that happens behind the scenes. Since you quoted me, I'll provide a link to your realtor facebook webpage (one of the forum members provided me yesterday) and your post on Feb. 7th regarding being a dual agent on your Streamwood listing:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Scott-Gunther-Real-Estate/104323206301590
Seems like you like you are bragging about it and was a bit distrubing to me. I make me think...how hard did you try to bridge the gap that $140k offer to get the transaction done or were you hoping in the back of your mind that it didn't work out and you'd be able to have a buyer come along that you would represent to double dip on the commission? From that post, I makes a little more sense as to why you are defending that other agent.
I did have an opportunity to work as a dual agent on one occasion and I was basically going to earn 1/2 of what a dual agent would have made because I was willing to scarifice a good amount of commission to bridge the gap between the seller and buyer to get a deal done that both sides were happy with. I'm sure 90%+ of agents would not do what I was offering to do. I've always been of the mindset to give a little now and benefit a lot more later, plus it creates good karma too.
IrvineRealtor said:
LongtimeOCRes said:
who is the legal fiduciary obligation to if the seller has no net proceeds and doesnt see a penny regardless of what the property closes for? most of the properties we are looking at are short sales and the seller doesnt care one bit about the property selling price. yet, its the seller that hires the RE agent and not the bank. i have seen fraud because of this odd relationship. i think DRE needs to address this issue.
in short sales, banks should hire the RE agent and the agent should do their best to get the most for the bank
usctrojancpa
Well-known member
Check out this listing that is in escrow:rkp said:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/56-Boulder-Creek-Way-92602/home/4792365
Do you see below the "Listing Notes" the "Selling Office"? That's the DRE real estate license number of the buyer's broker. Then under "School Information" you'll see "Selling Agent" and that has the buyer's agent's DRE real estate license number.
woodburyowner
Well-known member
rkp said:
This is exactly my concern as well. This is the type of scenario where it makes sense for the selling agent to only present offers to the bank from buyers that they can represent as well. It's no coincidence that the Sandro/Monica duo have many dual agency transactions on short sales.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Is this always the case? I was under the impression that the selling agent had a relationship with the bank which is why certain realtors are able to get these short sale listings more often than others. Or am I confusing that with REOs?rkp said:
usctrojancpa
Well-known member
I wouldn't doubt if those 2 pull the "If you go through me/us, you'll get (or have a better chance of getting) the home" since she's tried to pull it on some of my clients. There are good agents out there who do things on the up and up but there are plenty of agents who don't which brings down the whole profession. The process of becoming a licensed agent should change as well. I still don't get how someone who may not even have a high school diploma or DRE can be entrusted to have such a significant responsibilty as representing people who will make the largest and most significant purchase in their lives. There are some realtors that lack basic math and writing skills. And realtors wonder why many people view them on the same level as used car salesmen.woodburyowner said:
usctrojancpa
Well-known member
Yes that's always the case as the bank does not hire the listing agent, the sellers do (for short sales). The listing agents work and follow up with the short sale lenders to try to get the short sale approved and close the transactions. Hence the fiduciary obligation is to the seller and not the bank. The only time the bank hires a listing agent is when the property is owned by the bank (aka an REO).irvinehomeowner said:
usctrojancpa
Well-known member
The more information people have and the more transparent the system is, the better. It (through websites like Redfin) helps to level out the playing field and makes real estate less of a black box which only realtors have the key to.rkp said:
irvinerealtor
Well-known member
I understand that it would be easier to run with the crowd but I hope I've come across as consistent on this matter. I haven't been defending any one agent but hopefully providing a reasonable defense of the practice of dual agency, and that in some instances it can be a positive for all parties. Not always. Just sometimes. Nothing more.
@trojanman - I was sincere in the sentiment that I think you were acting in the best interests of all parties in your dual agency instance. I still am. I think it lends credence to the fact that it can and does take place.
I had to check back to my old postings from 2009 on the old IHB forums to find some of the same consistent sentiments that I'd shared, even in spite of having to go toe-to-toe with some of ardent supporters at that time - http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/5152/P25/#108460
and I'd tried to back it up with statistical evidence further back in 2008:http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/2219/
(thanks again to zovall for the brave move of keeping the forums up when you didn't have to... I've not forgotten how nasty it got when the split was taking place)
To defend myself a bit: Since it has been brought up, yes Streamwood is an excellent example that reinforces the shortcomings of assumptions that have been jumped to from being outside of the transaction that are not necessarily the case.
- The original buyer was represented by another broker. Their offer came in better than one of the buyers that asked me to represent them. It happens. :-\
- When the original buyers fell out, the current buyers stepped up and asked me to bridge the difference. I agreed. If it does close, I'll actually be getting less to represent two parties than I would for one, but it benefits both of them...
- I will also be paying out of the remaining commissions for the short sale negotiator that the sellers hired (before asking for my assistance), who took money from them up front.
- I didn't shortchange anyone and all offers were presented. (As a buyer, if you ever believe that your offer has not been presented, you should ask for the contract to be returned, with acknowledgement of receipt by the sellers on the space provided on page 8 of the CAR RPA form.)
While I'd like to believe that trojan and I are "unique snowflakes" about doing the right thing for clients, this happens daily with other good agents around. You do not need to take my word for it... you can call any escrow office and confirm for yourself. Escrow sees 300+ files to every one that I see. Officers should be able to answer general questions like this about closing credits (but not about specific files).
With that said, I'm sure that usc and I would both appreciate the opportunity if/when the time comes up if you know someone needing RE help, each with our own experience levels.
I do not recall CA having NOT allowed dual agency. I did call and check with Grandma IR2, who has been a broker for 50+ years here in SoCal, and she can't recall it either (I acknowledge that I might be misinformed, and/or she might have forgotten it) but for better or worse, I would not count on it going away any time soon.
Thanks,
-IrvineRealtor
P.S. BOLD AND IN ALL-CAPS INTENTIONAL: DO NOT PAY ANY NEGOTIATOR UP FRONT FOR THE PROMISE OF A SHORT SALE OR A LOAN MODIFICATION!
@trojanman - I was sincere in the sentiment that I think you were acting in the best interests of all parties in your dual agency instance. I still am. I think it lends credence to the fact that it can and does take place.
I had to check back to my old postings from 2009 on the old IHB forums to find some of the same consistent sentiments that I'd shared, even in spite of having to go toe-to-toe with some of ardent supporters at that time - http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/5152/P25/#108460
and I'd tried to back it up with statistical evidence further back in 2008:http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/2219/
(thanks again to zovall for the brave move of keeping the forums up when you didn't have to... I've not forgotten how nasty it got when the split was taking place)
To defend myself a bit: Since it has been brought up, yes Streamwood is an excellent example that reinforces the shortcomings of assumptions that have been jumped to from being outside of the transaction that are not necessarily the case.
- The original buyer was represented by another broker. Their offer came in better than one of the buyers that asked me to represent them. It happens. :-\
- When the original buyers fell out, the current buyers stepped up and asked me to bridge the difference. I agreed. If it does close, I'll actually be getting less to represent two parties than I would for one, but it benefits both of them...
- I will also be paying out of the remaining commissions for the short sale negotiator that the sellers hired (before asking for my assistance), who took money from them up front.
- I didn't shortchange anyone and all offers were presented. (As a buyer, if you ever believe that your offer has not been presented, you should ask for the contract to be returned, with acknowledgement of receipt by the sellers on the space provided on page 8 of the CAR RPA form.)
While I'd like to believe that trojan and I are "unique snowflakes" about doing the right thing for clients, this happens daily with other good agents around. You do not need to take my word for it... you can call any escrow office and confirm for yourself. Escrow sees 300+ files to every one that I see. Officers should be able to answer general questions like this about closing credits (but not about specific files).
With that said, I'm sure that usc and I would both appreciate the opportunity if/when the time comes up if you know someone needing RE help, each with our own experience levels.
I do not recall CA having NOT allowed dual agency. I did call and check with Grandma IR2, who has been a broker for 50+ years here in SoCal, and she can't recall it either (I acknowledge that I might be misinformed, and/or she might have forgotten it) but for better or worse, I would not count on it going away any time soon.
Thanks,
-IrvineRealtor
P.S. BOLD AND IN ALL-CAPS INTENTIONAL: DO NOT PAY ANY NEGOTIATOR UP FRONT FOR THE PROMISE OF A SHORT SALE OR A LOAN MODIFICATION!
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
This is something I think most buyers are not aware of. I've read several posts here and at the IHB where someone says they made an offer but the seller took someone else's even though theirs was higher and they put the blame on some insider relationship but never said if they confirmed the sellers saw their offer.IrvineRealtor said:
I think where it gets cloudy is in a short sale, after all offers are presented to the seller, which ones get presented to the bank for approval?