Yet another article on our changing industry and how some consumers are supposedly being hurt:

http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/broker_1.html

Thinking about this... if this business model ever shows up in my area and a buyer comes to one of my listings claiming to be represented but is unrepresented... I'm going to have them sign a form releasing my firm from all liability, and deduct 1% from the co-broke fee for the xtra work and liability involved.

This probably means I put 2 CB amounts in the MLS listing.

If the buyer wants the house this isn't going to stop them... and if it does, the buyers agent can take the hit. I have every right to compensate another broker as I see fit.

So your solution to the industry's problem is to make it harder for your clients to sell their house?

If you're going resort to this kind of stuff have the courtesy to at least disclose it at the listing presentation. See how many listings yoiu get.

How is that going to make it harder for my clients to sell their house?

Are you saying that because I am offering less of a co-broke fee to an unrepresented buyer that it will drive potential buyers away and kill deals?

I say it won't. Another firm shouldn't expect to receive the same CB compensation as a fully represented buyer for doing less work and increasing my liabilty... should they?

how do you know they're unrepresented? Do you assume that since the agent isn't present at the showing somehow the client is unrepresented?

When you hold open houses and invite buyers off the streets to look at your listings do you have those people sign a waiver too? Or do you only have waivers signed when the buyers come from a competitor?

I mean unrepresented at the showing by the buyers agent. And I'd do that for any agency... not only the ones that give rebates.

If I hold an open house and a buyer comes in I always ask if they are working with another agent. Around here the agents call ahead and tell you they are coming... as a courtesy. If they don't and don't have a buyers agency agreement then they are fair game.

Sorry you don't like the idea... but it's not my problem if other firms base their business models on flawed concepts. Keep in mind that under a buyers agency contract it usually spells out that the consumer will pay the agent a set fee... but it's not up to the listing agency to pay that fee.

I know many firms that won't pay any kind of co-broke if the agent doesn't register the buyer ahead of time. And talk about procurring cause issues... You want the full co-broke... come out with your buyer and see the house.

You don't have a right to the commission.. it's only under my good graces that I am offering a co-broke fee and I can compensate as I choose.

You can do whatever you want, but keep in mind that if you are a member of the mls, you must agree to pay the cobroke amount. There's a difference between a cobroke fee and a buyer agency fee.

I think you're business model is flawed to the max.

If you want to offer variable cobroke to different brokers, no problem. Do it ahead of time so we can filter the IDX and display only listings that will pay a fair cobroke. I'm sure we can get a tech to get this done.

Does it say this in your listing contract?

Most listing contracts I've seen say you will pay x amount to be in the mls. In your case, you'd need a listing agreement that says you will pay x amount except for the following companies..

LOL

"You can do whatever you want, but keep in mind that if you are a member of the mls, you must agree to pay the cobroke amount."

Based on procurring cause... which I would argue these firms don't have if they just send in an offer.

So who are you with? Redfin or the other firm?

Why is my reducing the co-broke fee unfair?

How is your filtering listings by co-broke fee serving your buyer clients? Don't you have a duty to show them everything that is avaialble and let them make their own decisions?

Talk about a flawed business model.

For every bad report there are two good ones. (as reported yesterday)
http://www.rismedia.com/index.php/article/articleview/15007/1/1/

"Most listing contracts I've seen say you will pay x amount to be in the mls. In your case, you'd need a listing agreement that says you will pay x amount except for the following companies.."

We use a custom listing agreement anyway.

Keep in mind that an mls listing is tied to agency and as someone seeking a co-broke fee without an exclusive buyer agency agreement, you are still working for the seller.

Not in Texas, not by a long shot.

By the way the co-broke fee is advertised in MLS here and you can't go changing it after the fact just because you don't like the broker that represents the buyer. Your lower-the-co-broke tactic could get you in a lot of trouble here.

In our MLS you can identify if the co-op is a "variable" commission, which means if the buyer wants to write an offer, you better call and ask what the co-op is for the day.

"as someone seeking a co-broke fee without an exclusive buyer agency agreement, you are still working for the seller."

Sure you are. If you don't have a buyers agency agreement and are seeking a co-broke fee, you are technically a sub-agent of the seller and have a fiduciary duty to the seller. Better do you homework on agency.

I wouldn't change the co-broke fee after the fact... it would be ahead of time when the listing was submitted.

Who pays you has nothing to do with agency or whom you represent or don't represent.
N. Carolina must be one of a handful of states with sub and dual agency.
I wonder which states still offer this archaic way of doing business?

"Who pays you has nothing to do with agency or whom you represent or don't represent."

It has everything to do with whom you represent.

You must be referring to transaction brokerage.

If you practice transaction brokerage in your state then my comments on agency don't apply.

My apologies to JFLynn and others if that is what they meant.

No, has nothing to do with TB (because of other options such as Designated Agent). I stand by my statement (for most of the US).
Since you still have sub-agency and dual agency, I understand your confusion. In the absence of both, who pays does not matter, that’s how most of the US operates.

Please clarify your statements: "Who pays you has nothing to do with agency or whom you represent or don't represent" and "has nothing to do with TB". You have to play some role in the transaction so I don't understand.

Are you telling me that your state and all these other states don't have buyer agency or seller agency in any form still... seems improbable to me.

How does procuring cause work? I have a signed agency agreement. The buyer wishes to submit an offer through me. They start and end with me.

Are you trying to steal my client while they are under contract with me?

Which other firm? I'm not with realsys.com if that's what you mean. LOL


You can choose to be a discount broker that's your call but have the courtesy to let people
know that you are shortchanging exposure for their home.

HINT...the following homes qualify for 50% rebate.

The following homes don't.


Is that your business model?

Your business model is indeed flawed.

Wrong, in my state you would be working with your buyer as a transaction broker WITHOUT a written brokerage agreement.

Josh

"How does procuring cause work? I have a signed agency agreement. The buyer wishes to submit an offer through me. They start and end with me."

Just because you have a signed agency agreement doesn't mean you are the procurring cause in a transaction.

"I'm not with realsys.com if that's what you mean"

It's realsys.org

"How is your filtering listings by co-broke fee serving your buyer clients?"

This is what you said: "Do it ahead of time so we can filter the IDX and display only listings that will pay a fair cobroke."

Now you've changed your tune and are going to show them all.

"Don't you have a duty to show them everything that is avaialble and let them make their own decisions?"

Yes that's my business model and it works well.

Josh,

You said:

"Wrong, in my state you would be working with your buyer as a transaction broker WITHOUT a written brokerage agreement."

What if someone wanted buyer representation or seller representation?

Transacton brokerage may be widely accepted but it's not the only way... is it?

Basically you have three different ways you can be working with someone:

A) Single Party Broker
B) Transaction Broker with written agreement
C) Transaction Broker without written agreement

For simplicity sake, we'll combine the last two, so we have single party broker and transaction broker.

If I have a listing with someone it would be as single party broker by default (office policy) even though legally we could take it as a transaction broker; so if I happened to find a buyer, I would have to either a) work for the buyer as a transaction broker, or b) switch to a transaction broker with my seller and work with the buyer as a single party broker, or c) work as a transaction broker on both sides.

What it boils down to is in Oklahoma they believe (and I agree) that you cannot be working fully in one parties interest while also working fully in the other (opposing) parties interest at the same time, so in other words you can't be a single party broker for both sides at the same time.

Basically as a single party broker, I am working as an advocate for the benefit of that party, whereas a transaction I am working with that party without being an advocate (more like a referee.)

Hope this helps.

Josh

You're half right. What about when they decide to submit an offer through me?

Whatever it is.


THE FOLLOWING HOMES WILL QUALIFY FOR 50% REBATE. THE FOLLOWING DON'T.

Isn't that letting people decide?

You're very confused.

O.K. So there is still buyer and seller agency (a.k.a. single party broker) in Oklahoma UNLESS you are attempting to handle both sides of the transaction.

You also have the choice of TB and not representing anyone.

Am I right?

I just explained it above in black and white.

Sure we do, plus other options such as TB and Designated Agent. (you have no option, you MUST work for the seller where you are, and the fallback position for a buyers agent from your office is sub-agency or dual agency)
Where I am, either seller or buyer can pay agents. The agents don't have to represent either buyer or seller, or represent one or both. Who pays has no bearing on who is represented or not.

"What about when they decide to submit an offer through me?"

Depends if you're the procurring cause. If you're not then you are not due the co-broke fee.
Simply being the firm from where an offer comes from doesn't make you the procurring cause.

Good luck with your business model.

Which states still have dual agency besides these?
Alaska
Massachusetts
Michigan
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
South Carolina
Virginia
Which ones still have sub-agency?

The agents don't have to represent either buyer or seller, or represent one or both. Who pays has no bearing on who is represented or not."

This is a blanket statement regarding transaction brokerage. In practical terms, if a seller is paying the commission they are being represented by a listing agency.... no? I think I'd have a hard time convincing a Judge that I wasn't representing a seller if they are the ones who paid me and I didn't have a TB form. So in practical terms who is paying you is who you represent... unless otherwise agreed upon.

That's my take.

Illinois is either designated agency(with or without benefit of an EBAfor buyers) or Dual Agency or No Agency in rare cases. It does not matter from what source you are getting paid.

Except when Oklahoma law says you are working for the buyer as a transaction broker if you have no written brokerage agreement, and as weird as it sounds if you do this you have to sign a form saying you don't have a written agreement, which seems counter-productive but it's probably to cover instances like you speak of.

Josh

From Redfin's Website:
I don't know how Redfin can expect to win a procuring cause case. The buyer has either: attended my open house, been attracted by my sign and/or found my listing on the web and then called me to show. In other words an agent for Redfin has not contributed to the buyer finding my clients property. The buyer has found the property entirely through my efforts. It sounds as though the industry may move more towards a builder type compensation model, i.e. if you don't initially arive with your agent to view the property and the listing agent shows the home, the buyers agent is going to have a very difficult time getting paid. I don't see this type of model being very sucessful. In fact it sounds like a nightmare for the buyer.

The procuring cause is redfin.com.

Redfin is how buyers find houses. Refin is what hooked them. Refin is what procured that buyer. The website did all the work. It's a new concept to a lot of you but redfin ( the broker company ) procured the buyer.

Compensation is owed to refin when the buyer signs for representation.

Refin.com got them hooked. Refin.com got them sold. Redfin.com agent got them to sign for representation. Redfin.com agent submits the offer. Seems to me redfin.com did all the work to procure the buyer.

Wrong. Dead wrong. You have ALOT to learn.

You've been up since 4 this morning. Go get some sleep do something. You're still confused.

I don't think you understand what websites can do these days. Buyers are being instructed to tell the listing agent that they have represenation.

Oh I understand. Were talking about procurring cause which you don't comprehend.

Okay you be the first clown to claim procuring cause after the buyer already TOLD you he's got representation.

Tell us how it goes...

Get back to building your pyramid ( realjunk.org? ) scheme and leave the home selling to us.

"I don't think you understand what websites can do these days. Buyers are being instructed to tell the listing agent that they have represenation."

That means nothing to the listing agent. If the buyers agent doesn't arrange a showing ahead of time or notify the listing agent that they are coming... the listing agent is not obligated to pay the buyers agent anything. For all they know they found the property at the efforts of the listing agency even if the buyers say otherwise.
Just telling someone to go see a house doesn't cut it.

The buyers can have representation by a non-present agent but that agent is not due a co-broke fee. Sorry.

theotherside, look at the 2 links and answer the 18 questions in the 2nd honestly for yourself.

http://www.frascona.com/resource/oef701buyer.htm

http://www.frascona.com/resource/jag594pc.htm

Just make a rule and place it in your MLS listings that listing agent must accompany buyer at first showing to be considered procuring cause.

I would make an exception for open houses, but if a buyer calls me as the listing agent and makes an appointment to view the property... I am procuring cause for the buyer and I don't care who the buyer's agent is.

Even if the buyer has an EBBA... I don't have to compensate the other broker... the buyer does.

Redfin.com hasn't seen the house.

In the state of Florida transaction brokers and single agents are required to use "skill, care and diligence in the transaction"

If you haven't seen the home, you can't claim to represent the buyer.

Non-Represented buyers are owned a 0% commission in most MLS listings in our market.

Have you ever heard of wrongful interference with a contractual relationship? This applies to all types of contracts, not just the scope of real estate, and I don't think a judge would look very kindly upon you if you stated you knew about the contractual relationship between the buyer and his/her agent but went ahead and formed your own contract with them for the same services, therefor interfering with an already existing relationship. You would be violating all three needed elements of this tort as well, and would lose in court without a doubt... that is if the other agent were to take it that far.

Keep in mind I am specifically commenting on this because you said you "wouldn't care if the buyer has an EBBA with someone else." Which means if you knew that, they told you they were working with another agent, even far enough to tell you they've signed a contract with another one.

J

The question would be, who is interfering, the agent or is the buyer unhappy with the other agent? I would say the buyer will convince the judge who he wants to work with and why.

I don't think he is saying he is going to interfere in a contractural relationship if one exists.

He is saying that there can be an existing relationship between a buyer and an agent, but he isn't going recognize that relationship as being procurring cause in the transaction, under the circumstances he gave... because it's not.

It's fine if they have a relationship. Let the buyer compensate the agent... just don't expect it to be from the co-broke fee because it was'nt earned.

I think this is what he means.

Where does it say that a buyer's agent has to touch, smell and see the house? These days you can see the house without being inside the house. Post a link.

Is this something you just made up or part of your state real estate regulations?

Redfins current way of doing business is doomed. They can be easily excluded from a commission due to total lack of procuring cause. It's kind of like saying Redfin told the buyers about the internet. If that's all they have to stand on, they're more like 'deadfin'. Buyers are entitled to all the representation they can swallow, but if the buyers agent doesn't have procuring cause, SOL.

The buyer already told the listing agent that he's got representation. If you want to stop a buyer at the door from seeing a house try explaining that one to the seller.

Buyer is welcome to see the house... come on in.

Buyers agent can't expect compensation from the co-broke fee though... sorry. Buyer will have to pay the buyers agent out of their own pocket.

[QUOTE]The buyer already told the listing agent that he's got representation. If you want to stop a buyer at the door from seeing a house try explaining that one to the seller.
/QUOTE]
Sorry, but you did not answer all the questions correctly, you lose.
1. Who first introduced the ultimate purchaser or tenant to the property?
2. When was the first introduction made?
3. How was the first introduction made?
4. Did the original introduction of the purchaser or tenant to the property start an uninterrupted series of events leading to the sale (or to any other intended objective of the transaction) or was the series of events hindered or interrupted in any way?
5. If there was an interruption or break in the original series of events, how was it caused, and by whom?
6. Did the broker making the initial introduction to the property maintain contact with the purchaser or tenant or could the broker's inaction have reasonably been viewed by the buyer or tenant as the broker having withdrawn from the transaction?
7. Did the broker making the initial introduction to the property engage in conduct, (or fail to take some action) which caused the purchaser or tenant to choose to utilize the services of another broker?
8. Was there interference in the series of events from any outside or intervening cause or party?
9. What were the brokers' relationships with respect to the seller, the purchaser, the listing broker, and any other cooperating brokers involved in the transaction?
10. What offers (if any) of cooperation and compensation were extended to cooperating brokers acting as subagents, buyer's brokers, or to brokers acting in any other capacity?
11. If an offer of cooperation and compensation was made, how was it communicated?
12. If the cooperating broker(s) were subagents, was there a faithful exercise of agency on their party or was there any breach or failure to meet the duties owed to a principal?
13. If the cooperating broker(s) were buyer agents or were acting in a non-agency capacity, were their actions in accordance with the terms and conditions of the listing broker's offer of cooperation and compensation (if any)?
14. If more than one cooperating broker was involved, was either (or both) aware of the other's role in the transaction?
15. If more than one cooperating broker was involved, how and when did the second cooperating broker enter the transaction?
16. If more than one cooperating broker was involved, was the second cooperating broker aware of any prior introduction of the purchaser to the property by the listing broker or by another cooperating broker?
17. Was the entry of any cooperating broker into the transaction an intrusion into an existing relationship between the purchaser and another broker, or was it the result of abandonment or estrangement of the purchaser, or was it at the request of the purchaser?
18. Did the cooperating broker (or second cooperating broker) initiate a separate series of events, unrelated to and not dependent on any other broker's efforts, which led to the successful transaction?

Correct, from only the party that has pledged to pay Redfin for what ever service, in this, the buyer. No one else owes them anything.

Here's a perfect example of what I am talking about:

Let's say it is Sunday morning and I am looking through the MLS to find my buyer's a house, I find them a few that they should really like and with these buyer's they like to drive by first to make sure they like the area. One of them happens to be open today (Sunday) while they will be out doing "drive-by's" and I let them know... if they get out to go in that one because it is "open" but I found it for them and they tell the agent inside that they are working with me already, most agents here in Oklahoma are not going to mess with them, some will, but I consider them to be the unethical one's... most will say okay if you want to make an offer contact your agent... I'm sorry but as much as you would like to think you were procurring cause for them to be there at the house and want to buy it, you are not...

By the way, I am closing on one in two weeks that happened in a situation just like this.

Josh

There are two contracts in play here.

1. The MLS contract. If the listing agent stipulates that in order to be procuring cause you must show the property to the buyer and puts that in the MLS, or prominently posts it on site as many builder/developers do in our area. Under either of these scenarios, there is no obligation to pay a fee to the Buyer's agent if the agent is not present for the showing.

2. The EBBA. The EBBA is between the Buyer and the Agency. All obligations and rights are held by the buyer and the agency and not by any third party. By disclosing... "I will not recognize your agent as procuring cause because you arranged for the showing directly with me." or "In order to have your agency be recognized as procuring cause the agent will have to accompany you to the showing," I am not interfering with the contractual relationship, I am informing the buyer regarding the contractual relationship that the buyer's agent has under the MLS.

The EBBA does not obligate a 3rd party, i.e. the Seller or the Listing Agent, to pay anyone a commission.

If you're a Buyer, you can work with Redfin all you want.

However... your actions can not obligate a 3rd party to pay them and therefore get your rebate.

That's easy...

Call the agent and let them know what is going on. Ask them if they require that represented buyers be pre-registered or accompanied before they see the property.

The policy is regularly set by builders and developers and is nothing new.

I'm sorry but the MLS entry is not a contract in and of itself... if it were we would have some major liability issues. A perfect example of this would be to disclose in the MLS that the curtains in the house are reserved, well unless it is written into the purchase contract that it is so, then they will stay with the property... again the MLS entry is not a contract.

Josh

Josht, there are a number of builders here in Houston that will contest this very point with you. If you are not present when your buyers make their initial visit to the property, you run a very high risk of being cut out of the deal. What you consider ethical and unethical is not the test. Please see Pike's post above on the 18 point guidline.

If nothing in the MLS is a contract... how do buyer's agents get paid without an EBBA?

No contract with the Buyer?
No contract with the Listing Agent/Seller?

The MLS in our market includes an offer of compensation which members of the MLS are obligated to pay under the MLS rules and regulations to those agents who are procuring cause.

Going off on a tangent about curtains in the purchase and sale contract has nothing to do with the offer of compensation.

We have brokers that add in the "agents only" section of MLS that they will only pay a commission to a cooperating broker IF they accompany their client from the very first showing.

I've seen it time and again: Agents working rural, resort, lake, & vacation areas are expected to spend their weekends showing properties to out-of-town buyers so that a Mon-Fri type broker back in the the buyer's home town can fax in an offer on Monday morning. Sorry, not good enough.....If you didn't show it, I don't owe it.

Most of the time we relate to minimum service as a listing agent and understand the compensation structure and local legal requirements.
Obviously a similar, minimum service exists for buyers, however, our RE community has not established exacting boundaries for buyers and their agents.
The wild card is the Redfin buyer, who runs around, agency representation in hand, hoping for the big rebate from Redfin. Redfin, looking to make the easy buck without spending money on gas or having to open doors, does not care, because they figure the listing company will pay them regardless.
This is the time when the rubber meets the road. John from ABC Realty had a call from a Redfin (or any other rebate company) buyer wanting to see a house. The first question John needs to ask is, are you working with another agent? If the Redfin buyer says no, John will probably show the home hoping to write an offer. If the buyer says yes, John should let the buyer know to contact his agent and make an appointment. ( recently I had an argument, where people told me it’s my responsibility as the listing agent to the seller, to show my listing regardless if the buyer has representation, that’s the publics perception of our duty)
A day later, the Redfin buyer makes an offer with his Redfin agent. Has that ever happened to you? It has to me. Buyers and agents lie, not always premeditated, but they do.
We need to establish better rules to define responsibilities for buyer agents. When a Company such as Redfin can send their buyers out on their own and expect to get paid, and advertise it on their website, something is wrong with our governing bodies. In this time of companies trying to make a quick buck, either listing or selling, we need to insist on clear and defined ways to operate our business. Minimum service laws suddenly don’t sound that bad to me, they will keep the public and us honest.

Mr. Buyer:

By showing you the property in the absence of your representative, I run the risk of inadvertently interfering in your agency relationship.

Therefore, your agent should arrange to show the property by contacting me directly.

Well as I stated earlier, in Oklahoma you would be working for the buyer as a transaction broker without a written brokerage agreement... so you don't necessarily need to have an EBBA at all.

J

Nice line, here is the reality:
"What representative, Im here by myself, I just want to see the home, if you don't want to show it to me I'll find someone else."
You have a showing by a buyers agent a day later with the same buyer (you don't know it's the same one) and an offer shortly thereafter. Are you going to suggest to the seller to ignore this offer because " I'm the procuring cause"?

I would always ask " are you currently working with another agent or have you signed any buyers agreement with another agent"? If the answer was yes I refer them to their agent to conduct their showing(no exceptions).
If they said no then I informed them that I would require them to sign an EBA for that particular house and the agreement that I would be acting as a dual agent should they desire to make an offer on the house.
If they said no then I told them I would be happy to refer them to an agent that did not require the use of an EBA or if they wanted buyer agency instead of dual agency. I would then refer them to another agent and then collect a referral fee.

I'm not affiliated with Redfin.

About procuring cause & Redfin, it may help that those posting whether Redfin deserves the SOC should actually be licensed in Washington State otherwise you have no basis for argument.

This is not definitive and subject to the arbitration panel, but is written by the attorney for Washington Association of Realtors:

"The procuring cause doctrine, as instituted by the NAR and the WAR is as follows.

The determination of whether the activity of a broker is the procuring cause of a sale is generally a question of fact. Broker's efforts must set in motion a series of events which, without a break in continuity, eventually culminate in the sale. Prior case law shows that it takes more than just showing a property to a prospective buyer or providing the buyer with information about the property. Even if a licensee wants to be and tries to be instrumental in the sale of the property, he will not be considered the procuring cause unless there is a clear connection between the licensee's action and the ultimate sale."

For example "agent #1 shows the property to the buyer. Then agent #2 ... drafts the offer for the buyer and offers assistance throughout the purchase process. Although agent #1 may have initially set the process in motion, agent #1's activities were not continuous and were interrupted by the activities of agent #2. Agent #2's activities eventually result in the culmination of the sale. Therefore, agent #2 is the procuring cause."

They may stipulate restrictions on commission but I find it almost impossible for a listing agent to define procuring cause. Procuring cause is a doctrine of law, not something a listing agent concocts.

I suppose this is a local MLS issue, but for our MLS, any conditions limiting the co-broke SOC must be officially registered with the MLS...what rwilson99 alluded to. But most developments here (onsite sales) will pay the buyer's agent a commission even if they did not accompany their buyer to the property. If the buyer registers their buyer's agent, that agent will receive the full commission, otherwise the agent will get a reduced SOC...which is almost nearly nothing (1/2%).

FACT speaks for itself. I suppose some of the agents here think they can come up with rules ( write in agent remark box ) to supercede current mls rules.

Fact. Sending a client to meet with the listing agent is a break in continuity.

Smart agents bring clients into the office for a consultation anyway. In Florida, agents are required to handle agency prior to showing property.

Our MLS has two brokerage commissions listing, local MLS and non-local. Most agents offer only a 1% co-brokerage commission on non-local MLS agents. If the procuring cause is out of the area, who is going to open the house for inspectors, appriasers, service contractors for inspectors, etc. etc. etc.

How is the buyer who makes an offer through Redfin going to get in the house to do his due diligence on his purchase?

Since Redfin will work with a local agent if the buyer wants local agency, I see Redfin becomming almost totally a referral company passing on buyers to local agents for a referral fee.

Fact. The client wants to see the house not meet with the listing agent about hiring him.

So two things can happen.

The client doesn't want representation at the time and only want to see the house. If you don't want to show the house at that time, maybe the buyer can contact the seller to explain why you refused to show them the house.

Second to connect the series of events which, without a break in continuity, eventually culminate in the sale. Every single event after seeing that property is the work of the redfin agent. As you know from the reading, your act of showing the property doesn't make you their agent.

Prior case law shows that it takes more than just showing a property to a prospective buyer or providing the buyer with information about the property.


Hey you're one smart agent. But where does it say smart agents have to show the house too?

Esat Texas Realtor writes:
This type of stipulation posted in the agent remarks section is also common in our area of Texas. Should Redfins abusive model appear in our area, you can be certain they will not last long if they continue to operate in the fashion they describe on their website.

Bkak Wrote:
Effectivly we are defining procuring cause with this 'concocted' stipulation. I don't have to go to aribitration to prove or win back anything. With this language we 'pre-define' procuring cause, at a very minimal level. Now that wasn't so impossible, was it?

I am the listing agent, I spoke to a buyer 3 times to get him in to see a property (he was a fisherman who was away a lot) ,Then a buyers agent called for an appointment she said it had to be right away because her client was going out fishing I told her I was working w/ a fisherman when I told her the name it was the same, I told her bring him in he is entitled to buyers representation, we will give her the co-broke, She submitted an offer declining our co-broke and asking seller for 1.25% more than the (50%) co broke we offered , sellers were furious,they signed a listing agreement w/ me saying they would pay me I would pay the co'broke fee, no extra , This is the fishermans dream home he cannot purchase now because sellers & buyers finances are so tight the extra 5,000 she wants does not fit into either budget. Who's best interest is she working for??? I do buyer agency I accept what is offered, if it is low I ask ahead of time- any suggestions? this is a shame.

"But where does it say smart agents have to show the house too?"

A smart agent would.. but you don't. Just don't expect co-broke compensation. Pretty clear here by all the posts that this type of business model is seriously flawed.

If you are sincere about this model for your business you better learn the difference between "case law" and "MLS arbitration" because you are woefully misinformed.

MA/RI -

I suggest you start a new thread with this so that others will see it. Repost it as a new topic.

So once again I ask, "where does it say that a buyers agent has to show houses."

BROKER, you don't read well.. here it is again.

Notice the part about case law
showing a property to a prospective buyer or providing the buyer with information about the property.

Not surprising they're using case law to define procuring cause as far as WAR is concerned.

You can dream all you want the future is here.

So if the realtor code of ethics doesn't suit you, redefine them?

Hate to break it to you but if you end up in arbitration they'll use procuring cause as defined in the code of ethics. In court, they'll use case law.

Perhaps REDFIN stands for every agent has to REDEFINE procuring cause.

theotherside:

This will be your last lesson from me. I'm done educating you.

Here's the problem: The paragraph you have highlighted concerns a statement about whether or not a licensee is entitled to compensation in a transaction; NOT whether another firm is due a co-broke fee in a transaction. Two completely different animals which is what we have been trying to tell you all along.

Now go do your homework. Good day to you.

In that case you've lost the war. What's the saying, "if you can't do, teach?"

You can get out of kitchen or you can get out of the mls take your pick but as long as you are a member of the mls, I'm do a cobroke unless you state otherwise. If you refuse compensation to a buyers agent, your seller will hear about it.

Have a great day, teach.

The COE has nothing to do with my requirement that you accompany your client on their initial visit to my listing. It will be written in plain English, in the Agent Remarks area of the MLS.

My sellers couldn't care less if you get paid or not.

The compensation of a co-broker making an offer is defined in the listing agreement signed by listing agent and owner. The co-broker can either accept the co-broker fee as his total commission or accept the co-broker fee as his total commission from the listing broker and derive further compensation from the buyer via a buyer's representation agreement that defines a fee that the buyer will pay the broker.

The co-broker doesn't set the commmission for either broker, the seller does through the listing agreement.

I think what Broker is trying to say and I do agree with him, is that there is a difference between the courts and arbitration. Prior case law is precedence set by the courts. So, if the issue goes to court, then the Redfin model has basis for their argument. But, commission is often determined by arbitration.

I don't particularly like Redfin and if had their buyers called me for a showing I wouldn't be too happy about it. But, my duty is to market & get the house sold for my seller. Refusing to show that house, to me, may violate of the Realtors Code of Ethics. The listing agent is putting their own interest over that of the client.

Oh, and if Redfin is not happy, they throw a tantum like a whiny baby... http://blog.redfin.com/blog/redfin/hall_of_shame/
Read the last two paragraphs.

Funny.

It appears the 'agents' failed to disclose that they were employees of a Real Estate Brokerage and taped conversations without permission. Both illegal in the state of Florida.

Anyway...

For all the limited service/no brokerage apologists out there what happens when.

Flat Fee Seller Gimmick Realty gets a call from Rebate Buyer Gimmick Realty client and refers them directly to the seller for a showing of a $350,000 with a variable commission of 4% with an buyer's agent or a flat fee of $2995 with no buyer representation.

FFSGR Seller is very excited to show the home because they will only pay a flat $2995 fee if it sells.

During the showing RBGR Buyer states that they will be making a full price offer and will contact FFSG on Monday.

When the offer comes in from RBGR on Monday, seller is royally pissed since the net from the transaction is now 11,000 less than they thought.

What happens when the seller, and as a result FFSGR, refuses to recognize RBGR as the procuring cause?

Is the seller, which fufilled her obligations for the discounted listing commission, entitled to the $11,000 or is the Buyer entitled to a 1.6% commission rebate.

Who does the buyer sue when the rebate is less than the 2% likely advertised or implied by BRGR?

Now does everyone understand the chaos that would take place be if the no service models took hold?

The no service models would implode if they had to co exist. Both the seller and buyer no service models are wholly dependent on full service models to work.

One last thing before we let this muck die a merciful death. If and when 'Deadfin' attempts to enter my market and 'poach' from my efforts, your company will be offically notified that I charge a 3% showing fee to any buyers agent from your company that is unable to attend your clients initial visit to my listing. Ohhhhh, that's gotta suck for you and your model. Anyway, have a nice day.

I read the article on yahoo and couldnt beleive how onesided it was and how it needed more reasearch as far as the other side of the coin by the writer so I fired off an email to him and he thanked me for the feedback. When I saw that website belittling that other agent I could not believe it. That in it self is a violation or the NAR code of ethics to post something like that.

Dear MR Haggarty,
I think your article is somewhat told from the other side of the coin . By Realtors. offering rebates ,it is a corruption in the whole commission structure. The only person who is permitted by law (at least in new york state) to receive a real estate commission is a licensed real estate agent..If it were any other way,What would be the purpose of having licensed Realtors?
Would you start having doctors give rebates to patients that help operate on themselves or or for getting certain surgical procedures as another example a lawyer give rebates for having a client practice law without a license. They have a right to represent themselves as a buyer but they have no right to share in a commission.The whole purpose of licensing is so that trained professionals handle the purchases.
As Realtors we cant even pay a person to give us referrals for good reasons.I will co-broke with any agent member of the MLS or not that's not even an issue.Selling clients do deserve full representation or what is known as (OLD CAR).The acronym for Obedience,Loyalty,Disclosure or Dilligence,Confidentiality,Accountability,and Representation However the buyer is not the one responsible to pay the commission. unless the agent has whats called an exclusive buyer agency agreement he can not discount the commission to the buyer.It is not his to discount ,yet alone rebate.Most real estate co broke deals as they are called are done through what is called sub agency.The(OLD CAR) duties go to the seller.The only legal obligation the sub agent has to the buyer is (HED) Acronym for honesty, ethics and disclosure of physical defects that affect the value of the property. If the buyer is sharing in a commission that the seller is obligated to pay out of the proceeds of the sale than the agent is creating what is called dual agency,Which I might add is illegal unless all parties agree to it..As a home seller or a buyer it would be ill advised to allow that,Simply because you are giving up representation that is owed to you by law .
If the agent is working as a buyer agent Which is one of my Fields also and which means that he works for the buyer and the buyer is responsible for the commission and in return the buyer gets the (OLD CAR)
A buyer or listing agent may legally discount his commission only to the client but to offer payment. The buyer agent does not have a right to negotiate his own commission with the listing agent of the buyer directly but it can be proposed in the offer to the homeowner,If the listing agent cobrokes with buyer agents which should always be done the commission is being offered to the agent not the buyer.For that agent to turn around and offer part of his commission amounts to what is known as a kickback for the business he may have taken from a sub agent that is working for the sellers interests. So in fact the client is not getting his or her OLD CAR. But instead may be getting a lemon.Last thing I heard is that kick backs are frowned upon and illegal it amounts to bribery. There are ways that discount brokers can opers\ate without kicking back money to the buyers,They can just simply discount there services.The agents that practice proper sub-agency will end up cheated and under cut by unethical buyers that will use there services and be shown properties and then go to the same discount broker and do the deal through them in order to get the kickback. Mean while the sub-agent is out his time gas and expenses.And yes there are some unethical buyers out there,They do not have to adhere to the code of ethics as we do. Again the only thing buyers are entitled to is (HED) unless the have an exclusive buyer agency agreement, I hope my letter gives you some insight into the other side of the coin.
You mentioned that these tactics which I do not see in the industry would somehow hurt the customer your not informed as to the difference between a customer and a client.A Client is owed (OLDCAR) and a Customer gets (HED) The client can be a buyer or a seller depending on the type of agency that is being performed.Which is the most important duty in real estate practice.Your research was not adequate enough to write the article I suggest that you do some further research or have the NAR National Association review you articles for accuracy prior to writing them.

Thanks for your acknowledgment.
I wanted to ad that further more if the agency relationship is as a sub agent as is the case with at least 90 percent of the deals in my area the selling agent bringing the buyer gets a commission for bringing the buyer and showing the house and working in behalf of the seller,the fiduciary duties go to the seller or whoever the client is,This is law of agency, so any discounts or cash incentives should go the client not to the customer. The agency relationship is what it is all about.If the selling agent does not show the house and assist in the sale in behalf of the seller when working as a sub agent he is not representing his or her client.
Once again the client is the one who is represented through a disclosure form ,that is the first form signed and agreed upon prior to any substantial transfer of information or negotiation at the soonest reasonable time. How can you represent your client if you are financially benefiting the buyer when the buyer is a customer and not a client? You cant period.
If the agent is working for the buyer as a buyers agent then the buyer becomes the client.Rebates are not how the buyer agent gets a discount for the buyer ,The buyer agent negotiates the price down in the buyers behalf,or if they choose to do so they can cut there own commission and ask that the seller in the offer to take 75 percent of the (BBC) Buying Brokers Commission off the Price of the house.But now the tricky part is when the buyer agent gets into a buyer agency agreement with the buyer,the Realtor becomes the provider of (OLDCAR) and must be present at the showing to make sure his client doesn't make a negotiation error such as paying more than market value or not using his expertise to protect his clients interest. The client can compromise his or her negotiating position in a number of ways, For one example showing to much excitement or saying the wrong thing can seriously affect and cost the client on either side serious financial loss.
If working as a sub agent for the seller the agent also has to be present to gain advantage for the seller in the negotiation process. These things end up being a much more important factor in the home buying process than a point off the commissions of an agent.
If the agent that is a sub agent does not do his share of the work and errors get made it also opens up the possibilty of liability and lawsuits from the party that is due the representation. In representation there is no such thing as partial it must be full representation or it is not representation at all. Tell your lawyer that you want partial representation at your murder trial and that you want to do the cross examination for a fee rebate and see what type of response that gets?
I agree with the agent that wouldnt share a commision with the company that just sends out its customer and expects to recieve a full commission for half representation to my client and his client and then expects his client through subagency to foot the bill and provide a discount through rebate to our customer who he doesnt even represent and should have made that clear to begin with.
Bill so you can see how complex this situation can be ,You are not a Realtor and your not expected to know all this,It is why we go to school and become licensed and go through the continued education courses and dont feel to bad there are many agents in the business that dont realize or acknowledge who they really represent so you actually did as good a job as can be expected. I ask that you research what I am telling you and verify it through more than one source and you will find me to be pretty accurate on most if not all of my points.
You should be able to revise and add to your original story.
Thomas Preston

hopefully he will revise his report to as more accurate version. To make alligations that there is a cartel or agents fixing prices is a blatant untruth and a blemish on the industry as a whole

I thought an agent recording a conversation with clients was illegal in all states (Florida and California included). Can anyone clear that point up for me? Thanks

It probably is if the clients dont approve it.Could that be a breach of confidentiality? Ask an attorney its really so far fetched and such a dispicable action that who would have thunk it would happen? I have a feeling this business model has the potential to open up a whole can of worms and put some new discussions and rulings in the industry. Rebates or kick backs are marketing incentives and do not work in the interest of a client but are self serving.If your going to represent a seller or buyer your supposed to help them negotiate a price not pay them a commission

I have never heard 'variable commission' described quite that way before. I have always understood it to mean that the listing agent has agreed to lower the commission if they are representing both the buyer and seller or dual agency.

BTW, its the seller's call on how much to co-op, not the agent or broker. You can refuse to do listings that wont co-op at a certain rate but bottom line its always the client who makes the decision...you work for them not the other way around.

Here is some verbiage explaining requirements in our MLS, take note of this statement:
"Such offers are unconditional except the entitlement to compensation is determined by the cooperating broker’s performance as the procuring cause of the sale....."
Just because a co-op fee is identified, it's no guarantee for the selling agent.
SERVICE LEVELS:
· The PPMLS accepts Full Service, Limited Service, and Entry-Only listings, but only when the listing broker has secured either an Exclusive Right to Sell, Lease or Exchange, or an Exclusive Agency listing agreement.
· Listings that have been submitted to the PPMLS in the absence of an Exclusive Right to Sell, Lease or Exchange, or an Exclusive Agency listing agreement will be deleted from the PPMLS database.
· As an example, if a broker has entered into a “marketing agreement” with a seller, and has input the property into the PPMLS as an EO-Entry Only listing, that listing will be deleted from the PPMLS database if it has not been secured by either an Exclusive Right to Sell, Lease, or Exchange, or an Exclusive Agency listing agreement.


COMPENSATION:
· Such offers are unconditional except the entitlement to compensation is determined by the cooperating broker’s performance as the procuring cause of the sale (or lease or exchange) or as otherwise provided for in the rules.
· Cooperating brokers should verify the cooperation and compensation information on listings for which they may make an offer.
Some brokers use listing agreements with addendums that state that the unilateral offer of compensation is not extended when the procuring cause agent participates in another MLS.

Section 5 COOPERATIVE COMPENSATION SPECIFIED ON EACH LISTING states, “The listing broker shall specify, on each listing filed with the Multiple Listing Service, the compensation offered to other Multiple Listing Service Participants for their services in the sale of such listing. Such offers are unconditional except the entitlement to compensation is determined by the cooperating broker’s performance as the procuring cause of the sale (or lease) or as otherwise provided for in this rule

In Section 5, the PPMLS further notes, “The listing broker retains the right to determine the amount of compensation offered to other Participants (acting as subagents, buyer agents, transaction brokers, or in other agency or non-agency capacities defined by law) which may be the same or different.”

“Specifying the compensation on each listing is necessary because the cooperating broker has the right to know what their compensation shall be prior to their endeavor to sell.” If the coop broker is unsure of the compensation being offered, they should verify the compensation with the listing broker.

There is another company that I've seen doing this in NY. It's pure BS. The BUYER searches for his own home, the BUYER negotiates, the BUYER does EVERYTHING except present the offer. Which is the ONLY justification for paying them squat. What CRAP. Redfin hooks them on NOTHING. RealEstate.com could do as much! Jesus Christ...what a rip off.

In our MLS we designate the local MLS member co-commission and the non-member. I always put in my listing agreements a 1% non-member commission. I explain to my seller that I will have to opem up the home for appraisers, inspectors, repair persons to get estimates, etc. etc. etc. 99% of all owners understand that and agree.

If the co-broker is willing to do some of that work or I want to give up some of my side to seal the deal, I can. Otherwise for companies like Redfin, it's a 1% from the seller, anything else you get from the buyer.

Variable co-broke in MLS does it. Easy to explain to sellers. Done.

Okay, you've just costed your seller a buyer. How does this benefit your client again?

Talk about limited service here comes LIMITED BUYERS companies.

LOL

"Okay, you've just costed your seller a buyer."

Why?

If the buyer wants the property they'll purchase it with or without you.

If you have put an unrealistic expectation in the mind of the buyer that's your problem... not ours.

I suppose the same could be said about sellers using you as their broker. They'll sell their house with or without you after they are notified that you've just costed them a buyer.

Why? You didn't answer the question.

First it is cost and Not Costed!

I would have to agree that what broker has stated would have in no way cost the client a sale. Per the Redfin example the Redfin agent with the co-op +1.5% would get a total of 2.5% and then rebate 1% for a 1.5% commission for doing little as their buyers agent.

If the buyer is really interested in the house then they will make an offer should you the discount buyers agent refuse to write the offer then you have voided your EBA with the client and they are free to find another agent that will write the offer..

Or the seller could fire you the limited buyers agent for putting your interest before them, and hire a full service company that actually gets them what they want. BUYERS.

I'm tired of you limited service agents gouging people. Limiting buyers. Limiting choice.

What next?

Huh? Time to take your medicine.

You still didn't answer the question.

Still confused? Time to do some homework, teach.
If real estate isn't for you, there's always that pyramid scheme ( http://www.realjunk.org ) you have.

The real question is how are you going to hide the fact that you're keeping buyers away from buying?

You're angry and lashing out. I probably would be too if my business model was diagnosed as fataly flawed.

The problem you have is that you want to give something away that isn't yours. All you have to do is be present with your buyers on the first showing and you can go along your merry way and give them most of your fee. More power to you.

Just don't expect to earn the full commish for your limited participation no matter how you spin it.

And you still haven't answered the question... and it's because the answer goes right to heart of your flawed business model and you don't want to fess up to it.

"The real question is how are you going to hide the fact that you're keeping buyers away from buying".

Tell that to all the judges, attys and news media who purchased a home and didn't get any form of rebate.

I'm not the one with question marks. LOL

I wasn't the one that started the thread asking questions. You got questions? Go get answers.
You've got so many questions/so confused that I don't know where to begin. Sorry you're not hearing what you want to hear from me. Your sellers are losing buyers and they want to know why. Have the intregrity to tell your clients that you're a limited service broker that delivers only a limited number of buyers per house.

But I get the feeling that your sellers will sell their house with or without you. They'll either sue you out of business or sue out of a listing contract. Either or serves you right.

Will the next deadbeat limited buyers broker please speak up.

http://blog.redfin.com/blog/redfin/hall_of_shame/

Tell people about your full service brokerages then limit the number of buyers to see their house. What a joke.

Why are you expecting other agents to do your job for you?
If you are not willing to open the doors for YOUR buyers, why should I and reward you with a co-op fee?
I would not expect you to pay me. How do you make sure YOUR buyer gets to see every home for sale in a specific neighborhood, MLS and non MLS? Or are you only obligated in your buyer agency agreement to make a buyer aware of MLS ONLY listings?
When showing my buyers homes, I make sure they get to see ALL homes for sale where a co-op is offered.

"Tell people about your full service brokerages then limit the number of buyers to see their house. What a joke."

No one is limiting the number of buyers to view a property. If anything it is YOU that is limiting views by placing conditions on a buyers purchase through your firm.

I have never worked with these people. My guess is that they would leave all the paperwork and inspections etc. to the listing agent..making the buyer unrepresented. What's wrong with this picture? I would have to insist on being compensated for all the extras. Also, couldn't I renegotiate the sales price since the buyer is in effect getting "paid" by the seller with the commission he/she is forking over? My job is to work in the best interest of my client. If the buyer is getting a cash "bonus" by going it (almost) alone and my clients are footing the bill, I would feel obliged to renegotiate.

So what happens when a buyer represented by Redfin makes an offer to a seller represented by Save Six or some such flat fee company.
Both of these models are counting on "the other side" to do the work but what if there is no "other side". That could be a funny scenario.

You summed that up much more succintly than my previous post.

The No-Service brokerage is dependent on the other side picking up the ball.

These models could not co-exist with one another and justify their existence. Ostensibly you have a FSBO transaction with two over paid brokers at any price.

Well if that is not a violation of the COE I don't know what is. Not a surprised though cause who would expect ethics of redfin.

You bring up an excellent point. I answered this question about fifty posts earlier. In essence what the redfin people have to do is break their IDX search into two groups. One group of properties pays 50% rebate, the other doesn't pay any.

They will have to disclose that the no rebate group includes properties that do not offer a reasonable cobroke thus no rebate can be given.

The variable co-brokers would be included in the no rebate group.

The buyers will decide which group suits their need but at least they will be provided with all properties.

You're very good at detecting the other guy's stink but always fail to smell your own.
Maybe the dead beat agent violated the realtor code of ethics too by not showing all houses to buyers?

Look I'm not here to take sides, I'm finding that you people are making all the realtors look bad. There's 50,000+ posts on this forum and not a single thread dedicated to making full service a better service. All I'm reading is a bunch of whiners that call themselves full service agents offering even less service than the discount companies.

Why don't you people spend more time being more critical about deadbeat agents calling themselves full service but offering less than even discounters?

Why not you as a moderator, a leader, start a discussion on making full service better?

Ever thought that maybe since all the full service agents offer the same service, same crap, same junk and same promises, all of you people are becoming a commodity to the lowest commission?

Now before you go around thinking I'm all for discounting and flipping burgers for a living, I'll leaving by saying this.

The flat fee listing and rebate companies are going to hate each other. On one side you have the mls brokers that offer $1 cobroke, on the other side you have the rebate broker offer 50% of $1 co-broke. It's going to be good drama.

Now stop your whining and find ways to capitalize off the real flaw with flat fee and rebate companies.

Since I abide by the COE I don't have any smell to worry about. Posters like you are cowards and do not stand by your convictions because you hide behind a screen name and lack any accountability!

I have never been in favor of a buyers agent failing to show any property that fit what their client was seeking. While I sold Residential I showed all available property because I used an EBA for all clients which spelled out what percentage I would receive for my services. Low co-op, FSBO etc.... it just did not matter because I knew what I was being paid. If the co-op was sufficient to cover my fee then ok. If not the buyer would write in to the offer that the seller would pay X toward my fee to make up the difference in the co-op. If more agents were not so afraid to use an EBA for fear of being rejected there would be no co-op problems.


As the listing agent it is not my responsibility to show another agents clients around my listing. Once a caller states they are already working with an agent I immediately tell them to contact their agent to arrange a showing. It is their agents job Period! The part in the redfin blog is just so stupid. If a buyers agent picks up the phone and calls my clients I would have him or her in front of the real estate commission so fast their heads would spin for interfering in my agency relationship and if that agent/broker is an NAR member they would be in front of a ethics committee even faster.

Thanks.
However, it does not answer my question about you showing or making YOUR buyer aware of ALL homes for sale, which the buyer agency agreement calls for (unless yours is different from ours). How do you show or make your buyer aware of all FSBO properties for sale in the area they are interested in? Since I drive my buyers around the area, FSBO signs are seen and responded to. How do you make sure your buyer has the same opportunity to make an offer (FSBO&MLS), sometimes within hours in a competitive market, when you sit in the office behind your desk and have no idea of what is for sale in that neighborhood?
I'm not trying to throw stones here, just wanting to understand how you work.

I hope your realtor code of ethics is better than your code of ethics on here.

There's no rule saying you can't post anonymously. There's a good reason why people like me remain anonymous because we don't want people like you ( cowards or not ) *69 us with your personal problems.

As a board moderator why don't you follow the rules of this forum and let everyone participate? There's no rule requiring me to display my personal information on here, how does that make me a coward to you?

YOU'RE THE COWARD MODERATOR THAT CAN'T EVEN FOLLOW THE RULES OF THIS FORUM. I don't expect much from you when it comes to following any code of ethics definately not the realtor of ethics.


NOBODY IS INTERFERERING WITH ANYTHING. I don't think you can afford to hire enough lawyers to define interfering. LOL

I can send your clients courtesy carbon copies of all communications between me and you expressing my concerns over you not wanting to show houses that my buyers want to buy.

Do carbon copy courtesy letters equate to interference of contract? I don't think so with the proper disclaimer.

It's one thing to be a coward and another to be
blind with eyesight.

Well just how some agents specialize in foreclosures but have access to all the houses. Some have special niches but we know they can help people buy and sell all types of properties.

Offering a rebate is niche marketing.

It doesn't mean a company offering rebates can't offer other types of services..fsbos, flat fees, full service..

Many agents have this blinded view that if a company offers flat fee or rebate programs that somehow they are prohibited by law from offering full service options.

Rebate is a marketing niche.

Does the amount of the rebate you offer make a difference in the niche you are in? Does the amount of the rebate place you above other companies who offer rebates and guaranty more income to you? What kind of a split does your company offer? Most of mine are 80/20 with many other options.
I guess you don't have an answer to my previous questions?
If you don't, I understand.

theotherside,
You are correct(first time for everything) there are no rules against posting anonymously. I just find that you cannot take much stock in the convictions of someone that hides behind a screen name as they tend to whine, moan and complain how unfair life is. You are an example of that but are welcome to moan, whine and complain all you want but do not expect the professionals to pay too much serious attention to you posts.

You are entitled to your opinion which you are free to post. I also am entitled to my opinions one of which is posting anonymously is cowardly because it removes responsibility for what you post. Even Moderators are entitled to their opinions. Did I prevent you from posting? What rule did I violate?

OOOOOO capital letters! Does that make your ego feel better? It was also so 2nd grade! Maybe you should go to time out!


Please do something like that to another agents client and we shall see which of us is correct.

I would have loved for an agent to have sent one of my clients a letter like that....I would have simply said " Mr and Mrs Seller it appears like this agent wants to get paid but is too lazy and uncaring to come show your home to his clients"

Now any additional letters and notes just make you appear more lazy and a foolish troublemaker and while you would write letters I would market the home as I am being paid to do.

I'm a broker so 100% allow flexibility.


It does get buyers excited about working with me.

NO.

What is your question again? So many questions, so much noise I don't know who's asking what. Drop me a PM. I'm done with this topic.

What are you smoking my man? There's no moaning and groaning in any of my posts. BROKER started a thread whining/moaning about a niche marketing and you continue his moaning and groaning. Read some of your own posts I'm sure you'll find plenty.


In that case, my opinion is, you are one coward board moderator.

I know. I stink and you don't.

We'll let your former client decide who's the lazy bum. My client hired me hoping that I don't show properties so they can get a rebate. That's what they want, that's what they hired me for.
I give them exactly what they want.

You're the whiner that won't open the door. Your client HIRED YOU to show houses to everyone. They hired you to show houses to unrepresented sellers as much as represented sellers.

I have no problem with limited buyer agents like you that don't show all the houses as long as you disclose to sellers that you won't be showing houses to everyone. The market will eventually clean house.

One final thought. Some of you having a problem with rebate companies, do you also have a problem with agent specializing in foreclosures and REOs?

Do you go around telling people that foreclosure specialists sell only ugly houses while you sell pretty houses?

LOL

Paul, I'm done with this thread. I'll let you have the final say. I know a man with such integrity as yours needs to have the last say or you'll never shut up.

Variable co-broke in MLS does it. Easy to explain to sellers. Done.

It's awful tough to offer a rebate from a co-broke you did not earn.

Doing nothing and expecting 33% of the co-broke, no compensation for the agent showing the home and a bonus for your buyer is a joke.

In addition, with the wide variety of co-brokes in the market the rebate offer is likely to be decetive in nature.

Do you feel better now? Does your Ego feel puffed up as your fingers keep typing and showing everyone that you are simply an agent that is too lazy and incapable of showing his or her clients the properties they want to see.


The sellers hire me to market their home and attract potential buyers and bring the deal sucessfully to the closing table. If is a truely unrepresented seller that wished to engage me as a dual agent then I will be happy to show them the listing. If the potential buyers are already in a contractural relationship with another agent then it is that agents responsibility and duty to show his or her clients the property not the sellers agent.

You really do have a reading comprehension problem. Perhaps you should get some adult continuing education to help you with that problem. It appears you just make things up as you go along to get them to fit into your thought.

The market will indeed do some cleaning and it will be those like you that get swept away. So at what point did you decide to fabricate the part about when I act as a buyers agent I fail to show all properties?? let me make this clear for you and I will type it slowly....I would show All Properties regardless of co-op or FSBO status because I Always use an EBA the specifies what I will be paid and the ways that can be accomplished....but then again I Always show my buyers properties personally and do not depend on another agent to do it for me. Now did you get that part or maybe you can get your mommy to explain it to you!