Realtor group questions real estate negotiation duties

Submitted by Sol Sek on May 2, 2008 - 2:15am.

I hope the power that be recognizes that Realtors negotiate on the behalf of the client. Realtors do not negotiate for clients and they do not/cannot make decisions for clients.
Having said that, the consumer is always the party that handles the negotiation and decision making related to a sale.

Let's not shame the industry by making consumers think we don't know who the decision makers are.
Consumers may never buy and sell houses 100% online but it's too late to stop offers from being negotiated online absence the Realtor.

Realtors bring tremendous value to the transaction from marketing to closing, let's not diminish this value by tricking them to think Realtors are the ones doing the negotiating.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Richard Greenwood on May 2, 2008 - 3:59am.

Doesn't the "buyers agent" present offers directly to the seller when the listing agent represents the buyer in a dual agency situation?

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Christi Borden, CIPS, ABR, GRI on May 2, 2008 - 5:22am.

My issue with this is that we demean our profession by diminishing the duties that one can reasonably expect from a Realtor. Why is it that there are minimum standards for doctors and lawyers but not our profession?

No wonder we are seen as little more than used car (house) salesmen. No wonder there are so many ethical issues presented due to lack of due diligence on behalf of practitioners. No wonder the words "fiduciary duties" mean so little to so many in our business. If we do not hold ourselves to a higher standard, why would anyone else?

The issue we are really talking about is our service. What can a consumer expect, at a minmimum, from a Realtor? If an broker/agent wishes to negotiate away part, most or all of his/her income, that is his choice. But he should be held to the same standard as those who choose to charge a reasonable fee for services rendered on behalf of our clients - as our licensing board requires.

If all a broker/agent does is little beyond MLS input and a few photos online, then that person is simply an administrator and not a Realtor - and should not be recognized as such.

Your Katy, TX Realtor,

Christi Borden, CIPS, GRI, ABR
Prudential Gary Greene, Realtors
Email: Christi@ChristiBorden.com
Web: www.ChristiBorden.com
Cell: 832-372-7470

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Joe Boylan on May 2, 2008 - 5:31am.

I think MLS’s opened the door to this sort of conflict by allowing limited service licensees to use their systems to post what are for all intents and purposes “For Sale By Owner” Offerings.

These are situations where the Buyer Agent already deals with the seller for showings and feedback. I think it’s weak to step up at this point and attempt to draw the line at presenting offers.This is what they mean when they say “Slippery Slope”.

Buyer Agents presenting offers to a seller is the organic extension of the limited service market place. The real issue here is “For Sale By Owner” offerings requiring a licensee to get into the MLS.

Joe Boylan

http://www.springshomes.com

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Terry Shortt on May 2, 2008 - 6:08am.

Montana along with every other state needs to update their rules regarding real estate transactions.

There is no problem in identifying the typical duties of a real estate broker in the state licensing law, the issue is whether a consumer has the “right” to waive these duties on the part of the broker.

Real estate license law is written (by brokers and lawyers) from the standpoint that consumers are children and need the protection of the state. “Minimum Service” laws (and rules) that have no provision for the consumer to waive them are an insult to consumers.

If adding a simple provision giving the consumer the power to waive these “minimum service” provisions is the solution; then why not just do that?

The answer is that the real estate industry (state regulatory bodies are controlled by the REALTOR associations) are not comfortable with the concept that with “limited service may come a limitation on the fees that they can charge”.

The Montana Real Estate commission is part of the overall collusion between the organized real estate industry, the National Association of REALTORS and all state and local affiliates.

This insistence by state real estate regulators to keep a provision on their books that makes certain minimum service rules mandatory (can’t be waived by consumers) is not likely to get changed voluntarily though.

The entity that originated the complaint in the Montana case is a “traditional broker” trying to stop the introduction of a lower cost real estate brokerage business model.

This is what keeps these real estate regulatory bodies (the NAR and some local affiliates) in the cross-hairs of the DOJ. The involvement of the DOJ and the FTC is unfortunately the only hope of seeing this anti-competitive practice eliminated.

Consumers of real estate services deserve to select what services they want from a real estate broker and pay for only what they want and need.

Terry Shortt, CRS, GRI
Broker, Instructor
TW Shortt and Associates
Fl. Real Estate SChool
And Training Company
Key West,Florida, USA

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Paul Howard on May 2, 2008 - 6:22am.

The article states:
"State code provides that a broker "negotiates or attempts to negotiate the listing, sale, purchase, rental, exchange or lease of real estate," and defines "negotiations" as "efforts to act as an intermediary between parties to a real estate transaction; facilitating and participating in contract discussions; completing forms for offers, counter-offers, addendums and other writings; and presenting offers and counter-offers.""

With this definition of "negotiations" the function is purely clerical. There is no requirement of ADVOCACY. Without that, there is little need for an agent. A clerk would do.

An Exclusive Buyers' Agent, is always an advocate and, as such, is most likely to not only save the buyer money but also alert them to many of the other problems that may occur during a transaction.

Paul Howard, Broker
NJHomeBuyer.com Realty
Cherry Hill NJ 08002
Member: NAEBA www.naeba.org

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Rob Aubrey on May 2, 2008 - 6:43am.

We had the same issues to deal with and the solution that the state came up with is. If you sign a contract with a broker the broker has a minimum set of duties.

Do you think a seller will net more negotiating on their own versus having a seasoned professional helping them?

Sol you are right it is ultimately the buyer and seller’s decision. However as an agent I am always asked from clients “what should I do”

Everything is black and white when we are not a party to moving.

Moving in itself has a ton of issues to deal with. However it is the major life events that lead to a move that bring in a set of emotions that are not conducive to making decisions of this magnitude. I have witnessed both buyer and seller get hung up on issues less than a $100. When you are in the middle of negotiating through a few hundred thousand dollars and you are stuck on items that are not significant it is from the emotions. It is not about the ability of people to make decisions. It is the ripple affect along with emotions that are the reason for help.

Terry consumers can waive the rights on the duties of a broker. Don't hire one.

As for my fear of having limited services attacking my commissions is not accurate. It is the confusion that they are the same as a discount.

Discount is not a bad thing as long as it means the same thing for less money. ie buying from Costco. They sell things for less than most other retailers.

In the end it is the negotiating skills of an agent that separates the professionals from the non professionals.

To reiterate these issues are easily debated when you are not involved in the transaction. But when a family is going through a divorce or the lost of a family member or some other major event a skilled agent is worth every dime and then some.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Walter Boomsma on May 2, 2008 - 6:43am.

Minimum Standards? There's a novel idea. Who's minimum?

One reason we aren't like Doctors and Lawyers is that we aren't doctors and lawyers. Require college degrees, internships, years of education and then MAYBE the analogy has some merit.

As several posters have suggested, attempts to have the "law" (and that includes MLS Policy/Rules and the Code of Ethics) "protect" our rights and business is getting it all backwards. Too often our "minimum standards" cry is merely a way of making our own preservation appear more palatable to the public. Those restrictions are at least in theory supposed to protect the consumer.

Since several have attempted to identify the "real issue" here... we might consider one possibility. The real issue is who is being protected and what is the best way to do that?

My bias is that if we are truly consumer/client driven it's best to err on the side of allowing them choices. And I think history proves that competition always benefits the customer.

I would say a full fifty percent of the time I am cobroking the other agent/realtor takes a "you have to" position with me on a number of issues. That's not negotiating. It's arrogance. I recently "did battle" with an agent who attempted to refuse to allow my client due diligence by informing me that HE was certain there was no problem and his client agreed with him. I not too gently pointed out that he did not have the right to make that choice for my client.

I have on occasion suggested meetings between buyers and sellers to exchange information first hand. I don't think that diminished my value one iota.

If we don't lose the arrogance we have as individuals and a profession, more and more consumers are going to start looking hard at the value we have... and all the laws, policies and codes are not going to give them the answer we hope.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Melina Tomson on May 2, 2008 - 7:57am.

I agree with Walter on this one. As part of the small percentage of agents that have a master's degree, getting my license was too easy for what is required to know.

There are many agents that are incrediby wonderful and true professionals, and all of them agree that the entry standards are too easy.

I do agree that it is arrogant to assume to know what the customer does or does not want. Clearly some of them want this service. I know in my area that limited service reps are getting a lot of business these days.

I think ALL agents should have proper disclosure of what a client is or is not getting. Personally, I find it more concerning about agents that profess to be "full service" and are incompetant. At least with limited reps there is no expectation of full service.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by MLS4owners.com on May 2, 2008 - 9:06am.

The petition of the Great Falls Association of REALTORS® regarding the ability of real estate brokerages to offer a la carte services to homesellers is an effort to quash competition and defend the status quo of high costs and limited choices for Montana’s residents.

The Petitioner claims that offering these services is in violation of Montana law. Of course, it is not. Petitioner appears to claim that definition 4(a) in 37-51-102 (which refers to “negotiation”) is the only definition that should be considered for a broker. However, paragraph 4(c) and others include definitions under which providers of a la carte services would fall, including charging a fee for promoting a sale with no mention of “negotiation”.

We are not familiar with the company to which the Great Falls Association is referring. In fact, we don’t even know who they are. However, we are very familiar with the tactics used by those who want to put out of business those who practice non-traditional business models, and the Petitioner’s goal is to keep companies like ours from offering services to the people of Montana. We offer Exclusive Agency listings similar to those described in Paragraph 2 of the Petition. Our customers have closed more than $800 million in sales since 2001, and we are one of the largest single office brokerages in Washington. We have had more than 4000 customers, and not one of them has filed a complaint against us with the state, a REALTOR® association, or any multiple listing service. This is an unbeatable track record of customer service excellence, and there are many other non-traditional brokerages around the country that beat or match the consumer satisfaction offered by traditional brokerages. We believe in the value of full service representation for those who want it (both buyers and sellers), and agents from more than 300 different brokerages have earned commissions by representing buyers for our sellers. We also believe consumers should have choices about the services they want and the nature of the fees they will pay, and there are many good options available. The Petition is an effort to block those options, and Montana consumers will be hurt if the Petitioner gets the ruling it wants.

Ken Whitney
MLS4owners.com
REALTOR(R)

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Sol Sek on May 2, 2008 - 10:15pm.

Perhaps we need to distinguish between quality and quantity of service. Other professions have quality standard, not quantity standard. They have minimum quality standard, not minimum quantity of service.

Every state has laws requiring agents to make available certain services to consumers. Yet consumers determine the types of services needed and agents provide the minimum quality expected by the consumers.

The presumption that more service is higher quality is misleading at best.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Anthony Nichols on May 4, 2008 - 2:55pm.

This whole issue is simply one giant ruse being perpetrated on the public and Realtors under the guise of anti-trust concerns. In light of how the federal government (especially the FTC & DOJ) has handled matters over the past seven years, and the consequential state of the economy, do consumers really want the choice of waiving protections from waste, fraud, and abuse? Do consumers really want to waive the firewall that maximizes their peace, health, and safety? That's like saying consumers should have the choice to waive protection from DDT in their drinking water.

This is about the current administration's hell bent penchant for de-regulating anything and everything; pandering to special interest greed at the publics detriment. I think it’s more than apparent how well that policy has been working.

Specifically, this is about accommodating a business model which allows agents to exploit the role of advertising clerk with no other responsibilities; thereby giving Sellers access to the MLS for a limited fee. Note to FTC & DOJ; the MLS is not a public utility! Note to limited service agents; this is a cut your nose to pad your pocket practice- good luck.

Here's one more elephant in the room; commissions and brokerage fees are NEGOTIABLE! Always have been, always will be! There’s nothing to prevent a consumer from negotiating fees! Negotiating fees doesn't require a waiver of duties or changing state law. If a Seller wants to waive a Broker/Agent's duties, fine; that's called a For Sale By Owner. Duh!

Consequences of Limited Service Listings

• Listing Agent is not required to provide their Seller client the benefits and protections of licensing, continued education, and professional codes of conduct.
• Sellers are not bound by licensing requirements, continued education requirements, professional codes of conduct, or other rules and regulations governing licensees.
• Buyers Agent now has the burden and liability of educating and consulting both their Buyer client, and the Seller, on each and every negotiable point in a purchase agreement, each and every issue of the due diligence period, as well as each and every issue of the escrow process.
• Even with a waiver of liability, a Buyers Agent is still compromised when negotiating with both principals. You can't waive the potential consequences of dual agency; they're inherent.
• Unscrupulous Buyers Agents are free to ride roughshod over an uneducated or inexperienced Seller.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Sol Sek on May 4, 2008 - 6:47pm.

>>>>>>>>If a Seller wants to waive a Broker/Agent's duties, fine; that's called a For Sale By Owner. Duh!>>>>>>

No it's not called for sale by owner. It's called choice. This topic isn't about waiving ALL broker/agent duties. It's about waivïng çertain services that people might not need.

When consumers want an injury attorney, they don't need divorce and criminal protection.

When consumers want to visit the dentist, they don't need a chest x-ray.

When children go visit the pediatric clinics, they don't need head surgery to be part of the bill.

There's more to service than black and white and there's more to real estate services than for sale by owner and agents that force people to pay for things they don't need.

I hope this clarifies. The market isn't rejecting realtor services, just the opposite in fact, many consumers need Realtors.

BUT THEY DON'T NEED REALTORS TO TELL THEM THEY NEED SERVICES THEY MAY NOT NEED.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Sol Sek on May 4, 2008 - 7:22pm.

It seems every profession in the world lets consumers pick and choose the types of services they need. EXCEPT real estate.

I'm glad Realtors aren't doctors or many would send a sick person home because of a patient's refusal to pay for all the services where licensed doctors are bound by fiduciary.

Can you imagine if doctors were to tell sick patients that they had to go home or pay for full service medical treatment.

Where full service includes services that add up to thousands in unnecessary expense?

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Anthony Nichols on May 4, 2008 - 10:42pm.

Sol Sek,
Nice job of taking one line out of context and spinning it into a straw man. Now, put the one line back and consider it within the WHOLE context of my argument.

To begin, mixing the definitions of 'services' and 'duties' is the same lame sleight of hand the DOJ & FTC are using to foist this ruse on the public. Moreover, your analogies are just as insulting as the federal governments handling of the publics best interest over the past seven years.

When a consumer goes to a legal or medical specialist, they expect that specialist to be knowledgeable and capable enough not only to perform any agreed 'services'; but also ethical enough to provide standard 'duties', no matter what 'services' may have been agreed to.

When you go to your dentist, doctor, lawyer, accountant, or what have you; do you not expect them to not only advise you as to a best course of action, but also to apply their care and expertise into bringing that course into effect, and to advise and implement a new course should matters not go as originally planned?

Or do you pay them a fee to post your need on some database and then wait for someone you don't know, who doesn't represent your best interest, and who's been given a waiver of liability should your best interest not be served, to handle all the work that you went to your professional for?

GET REAL! Consumers have the freedom to choose any 'services' they want, and the freedom to NEGOTIATE the fees for those services. State laws requiring minimum standards of service do not interfere with freedom of choice. They do however require Realtors to practice their profession in a manner that limits waste, fraud, and abuse.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Sol Sek on May 4, 2008 - 11:59pm.

>>>>Realtors to practice their profession in a manner that limits waste, fraud, and abuse.>>>>

I agree but that's not a license to maximize waste, fraud and abuse either.

>>>When a consumer goes to a legal or medical specialist, they expect that specialist to be knowledgeable and capable enough not only to perform any agreed 'services'; but also ethical enough to provide standard 'duties', no matter what 'services' may have been agreed to.>>>

So what's the problem? How is this related to the topic at hand? What is the standard duties of the legal and medical profession?

Anthony Nichols, your assertion of the word "duties" makes the matter even worse for consumers. Your "duties" as a Realtor is limited to what the client wants just as you wouldn't go see a dentist and expect him to know the condition of what's inside your head.

You wouldn't pay for an injury attorney and expect him to settle your estate, do you?

Do you get your oil change and expect them to
advise you on road driving conditions?

Do you go see a car mechanic and expect him to
advise on road conditions too?

Are you suggesting that Realtors can be ethical, responsible, and morally obligated to clients only when consumers pay for things they don't need? Perhaps your business model makes it impossible to be honest, ethical, and helpful but I can name companies that provide them too and still give consumers a fair choice.

You are missing the point of the whole discussion which isn't about whether commission is negotiable. People already know this. The issue at hand is that by forcing people to pay for unnecessary "duties" Realtors are forced to charge more for their time.

I know agents that are far more ethical, honest, hard-working, and helpful than many that claim to offer otherwise.

I'm being real.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Walter Boomsma on May 5, 2008 - 3:33am.

What an interesting discussion... although I continue to reject the comparison of realtors to doctors. I know some 18 year old agents who've never had a checking account but managed to pass a 50-some hour adult education class and get licensed.

When we start offering a correspondence course medical degree I'll consider comparing realtors to doctors.

The issue is, I think, called "informed consent." We've kept this business of real estate a mystery for way too long. We have mystery letters to append to our name without much meaning. We use acronyms. We have fancy presentation folders and love to send out recipe postcards. (Somebody is going to explain to me some day what that has to do with real estate.)

Intentionally or not, we've confused consumers.

We have several agencies in our area who do not participate in MLS. One has a large banner across it's office building "World Wide Internet Exposure of Your Listing." What clients don't realize is that they are describing an amateur web site. On a regular basis I hear clients say they didn't realize they weren't getting MLS.

Misleading people is the same as not giving them a choice. I don't want to force this agency to offer MLS, but I would like customers to understand they don't. I spend a lot of time educating clients before, during, and after the "sale."

Most of the laws we lobby for and pass only serve to "dumb down" consumers. When our industry makes sweeping claims and offers meaningless drivel we add to the problem.

Ask your prospective clients how they are going to choose which agency to work with, if any.

Then give some thought to this: They are working with the information we as an industry have provided.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Sol Sek on May 5, 2008 - 6:05pm.

I concur with Walter on informed consent. Problem is the industry doesn't want to grant consumers this right. We've had ( as an industry ) for decades offered the "exclusive agency" where consumers can sell on their own and waive all duties of the realtor but owe commission to the exclusive agency.

It appears the industry is willing to offer choice to consumers, condition on having to pay full commission to the exclusive agency.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Anthony Nichols on May 5, 2008 - 8:30pm.

Sol Sek,
Your analogies are shallow and insulting. Of course one doesn't got to a specialist and expect them to perform services outside their area of expertise. But one would expect it to be that specialist's professional 'duty' not only to be knowledgeable, capable, and accessible enough to perform any services within their practice but also to act in the clients best interest.

Instead of continuing with irrelevant analogies, and parsing my statements out of context, why don't you just answer my question:

When you go to your dentist, doctor, lawyer, accountant, mechanic or what have you; do you not expect them to not only advise you as to a best course of action (within their area of expertise), but also to apply their care and expertise into bringing that course into effect, and to advise and implement a new course should matters not go as originally planned?
---OR---
Do you pay them a fee to post your need on some database and then wait for someone you don't know, who doesn't represent your best interest, and who has a waiver of liability should you be harmed; to handle all the work that you went to the original specialist for?

Also, please address each one of these issues without parsing out of context:

Consequences of Limited Service Listings
• Listing Agent is not required to provide their Seller client the benefits and protections of licensing, continued education, and professional codes of conduct.
• Sellers are not bound by licensing requirements, continued education requirements, professional codes of conduct, or other rules and regulations governing licensees.
• Buyers Agent now has the burden and liability of educating and consulting BOTH their Buyer client, AND the Seller, on each and every negotiable point in a purchase agreement, each and every issue of the due diligence period, as well as each and every issue of the escrow process.
• Even with a waiver of liability, a Buyers Agent is still compromised when negotiating with both principals. You can't waive the potential consequences of dual agency; they're inherent.
• With a waiver of liability, unscrupulous Buyers Agents are free to ride roughshod over an uneducated or inexperienced Seller.

That's five elephants in the room that limited service proponents, along with the FTC and DOJ, all seem to be perfectly willing to ignore. It's a fact that in order for the limited service model to work, two waivers are required; one relieving the Sellers Agent of certain 'duties' and one relieving the Buyers Agent of liability.
Kind of reminds me of those California hillside mansions built on stilts. Moreover, now the Buyers Agent has to pick up the slack that the Seller's Agent has been relieved of.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Sol Sek on May 6, 2008 - 4:43pm.

Anthony,

My appology if the humidity is high today but your persistence that everybody GETS REAL is more insulting than anything written so far. Perhaps your ideas are more real to you than me but that doesn't make it real to everybody else.

I don't think anybody here disagrees with you regarding your duty as a professional. I also don't think anyone has a disagreement with you regarding your standard of service, your licensing requirement and the efforts and dedication you've applied to maintain your license. The liability issue is also correct. Everybody and myself included in the industry agrees with you. But how you manage your business affairs and whether you earn a profit is your responsibility. Don't whine to the consumers, it's not their responsibility to come up with a model to make you a profit.

The problem is when you force people to use service they otherwise do no need.

I like your take on what will make a limited service model work and all the waivers needed to make it work. You've completely missed the point in that consumers shouldn't need your waiver in the first place.

Last, the industry has been providing limited service for years. What do you think happens when a listing agent sits all day at open houses offering dual agency or no agency to the public or exclusive agency without service?

You really need to look at the whole forest not the individual trees. We're not talking about elephants but services that consumers don't need.

Of the millions of home sold each year how many have gone bad caused by alternative models? Show us some #s.

Your take on limited service is quite limited at best. Unfortunately.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Anthony Nichols on May 7, 2008 - 12:00am.

Sol Sek,
I asked that you not parse my statements out of context, and yet you continue to do so; which is the only way you can continue your argument.
I can say however, that you do seem to be slowly, maybe surely, getting the point. In your own words "...the industry has been providing limited service for years." BAM! There it is my friend; my point exactly. Consumers have, and always have had, CHOICE! Commissions are, and always have been NEGOTIABLE! It isn't necessary to change state laws to relieve one Agent of responsibility, and relieve another Agent of liability, to create that which already existed. Laws and 'duties' that protect peace, health, and safety while limiting waste, fraud, and abuse do not prevent Buyers, Sellers and Broker/Agents from negotiating agreeable fees!

The MLS is not a public utility! It is a CO-OPERATIVE paid for and supported entirely by Brokers & Agents (including limited service Broker/Agents 'for years.') The fact that it works so well (and why Sellers want access) is a testament to the legitimacy and effectiveness of the licensing requirements, professional codes of conduct, and statutory rules and regulations that have been in place 'for years.' To repeal or dismiss essential Agent responsibilities that those licensing requirements, codes of conduct, and rules/regulations are meant to insure, kind of defeats the purpose; no?

Like you said; "...the industry has been providing limited service for years." The difference now, is that the limited service concept is being taken to an EXTREME, under the guise of giving consumers choice. BOGUS! It isn't about consumer choice; it's about making a quick buck and avoiding liability! Pretty much the same concept that brought about the sub prime debacle.

If the business model is truly in the public interest; why are waivers required for the model to work? Likely similar to discussions with borrowers before they accepted an adjustable rate mortgage; Sellers are now being led to believe that cheap, unrepresented access to the MLS won't be a problem.

How long will you refuse to address the following?
FIVE CONSEQUENCES OF LIMITED SERVICE LISTINGS
• Listing Agent is not required to provide their Seller client the benefits and protections of licensing, continued education, and professional codes of conduct.
• Sellers are not bound by licensing requirements, continued education requirements, professional codes of conduct, or other rules and regulations governing licensees.
• Buyers Agent now has the burden and liability of educating and consulting BOTH their Buyer client, AND the Seller, on each and every negotiable point in a purchase agreement, each and every issue of the due diligence period, as well as each and every issue of the escrow process.
• Even with a waiver of liability, a Buyers Agent is still compromised when negotiating with both principals. Waiving liability doesn't eliminate harm.
• With a waiver of liability, unscrupulous Buyers Agents are free to ride roughshod over an uneducated or inexperienced Seller.
----Also----
When a Buyers Agent has no choice, but to answer an unrepresented Seller's relentless questions in order to facilitate a deal; will those answers be in the Seller's best interest, or the Buyer's? Remember, the Buyer's Agent now has a waiver of liability.
----And should you return to your irrelevant analogies; then answer this:
When you go to your dentist, doctor, lawyer, accountant, mechanic or what have you; do you pay them a fee to post your need on some database and then wait for someone you don't know, who doesn't represent your best interest, and who has a waiver of liability (should you be harmed), to service your needs?

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Sol Sek on May 7, 2008 - 8:39am.

Anthony,

You seem very confused. Would it clarify a few things for you if I were to post a few links to hundreds of actual consumers that have been happy with what you call limited service? Show me some links to consumers that have been unsatisfied with limited service listings?

Like I've stated the industry has been doing just fine for decades.....so why the need to change rules and why the need to review old rules that have been working fine?

>>>>
When you go to your dentist, doctor, lawyer, accountant, mechanic or what have you; do you pay them a fee to post your need on some database and then wait for someone you don't know, who doesn't represent your best interest, and who has a waiver of liability (should you be harmed), to service your needs?>>>>>

No. Where do you see this happening? Where do you see harm? What is the probability of harm?

Let's show some real numbers and take out all the you say I say nonsense.

I'm ready when you are.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Anthony Nichols on May 7, 2008 - 12:58pm.

Sol Sek,
If you spin my my statements out of context any more forcefully, you're likely to knock the earth of it's axis...

I agreed with you regarding limited service listings being a legitimate business model, that has co-existed for years just fine with other models. Do you get that? I agree with you.

Now here's your incessant spin: "...so why the need to change rules and why the need to review old rules that have been working fine?" EXACTLY! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING! Why is the DOJ and the FTC brow beating ,and strong arming, MLS's and State Legislatures coast to coast into changing rules, regulations, and codes of conduct to accommodate that which already existed and had been working just fine?

Answer: Because without changes in laws, rules, regulations, and codes of conduct, the NEW EXTREME VERSION of limited service will not work. The NEW EXTREME VERSION of limited service will only work if Sellers Agents can waive their professional duties and, consequently, Buyers Agents can waive liability. Just how solid do you expect a business model to be that requires waiver of duties and liability.

You say you can provide testimonials from satisfied limited service clients; I've seen the actor testimonials also (not so much lately, though.) But that's beside the point; what are the numbers from consumers that said "yes, I want less assurance of peace, health, & safety, and more exposure to waste, fraud, & abuse?"

You also asked: "Where do you see harm? What is the probability of harm?"

RIGHT HERE:
FIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW EXTREME VERSION of LIMITED SERVICE LISTINGS
• Listing Agent is not required to provide their Seller client the benefits and protections of licensing, continued education, and professional codes of conduct.
• Sellers are not bound by licensing requirements, continued education requirements, professional codes of conduct, or other rules and regulations governing licensees.
• Buyers Agent now has the burden and liability of educating and consulting BOTH their Buyer client, AND the Seller, on each and every negotiable point in a purchase agreement, each and every issue of the due diligence period, as well as each and every issue of the escrow process.
• Even with a waiver of liability, a Buyers Agent is still compromised when negotiating with both principals. Waiving liability doesn't eliminate harm.
• With a waiver of liability, unscrupulous Buyers Agents are free to ride roughshod over an uneducated or inexperienced Seller.
----Also----
When a Buyers Agent has no choice, but to answer an unrepresented Seller's relentless questions in order to facilitate a deal; will those answers be in the Seller's best interest, or the Buyer's? Remember, the Buyer's Agent now has a waiver of liability.

• Login or register to post comments

Submitted by Sol Sek on May 8, 2008 - 4:37pm.

Anthony,

Great! I'm glad you've finally agreed that I've agreed with you all along. As you now clearly see I never had a problem with providing quality service. That was never an issue.

The issue surfaces only when you force people to use your service when they don't need you.

Why do you assume that people that use alternative ways to sell their houses are getting "limited service"?
Why do you assume that they experience problems?
Show me some actual homes that have had these problems. I'm not talking testimonials. Show me some real houses with problems.

WHAT THE HECK IS THE NEW "EXTREME" LIMITED SERVICE MODEL? IS THIS SOMETHING YOU MADE UP YESTERDAY? Why do you insist that these new models won't work when they've worked all over the country?

Please provide evidence that alternative business models with sound objective fail.

All of your concerns can be easily addressed with transparency. What do I mean by transparency? DISCLOSE the actual services/duties that you want to provide in a legally enforceable representation contract.

DISCLOSE your level of fiduciary.

DISCLOSE your level of agency.

DISCLOSE what you will/will not include in your service package.

It appears many agents have EXTREME paranoia when the solution can be addressed in the form of a disclosure.

Btw, about your poor assessment of FTC and DOJ.

>>>>>" EXACTLY! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING! Why is the DOJ and the FTC brow beating ,and strong arming, MLS's and State Legislatures coast to coast into changing rules, regulations, and codes of conduct to accommodate that which already existed and had been working just fine?
>>>>>>

Where do you see this happening? They ( FTC and DOJ ) are not fighting to change rules, regulations or code of conduct. You've been completely mislead. THE FTC AND DOJ are fighting to stop recent changes in laws and regulations that could inhibit competition. It is the local NAR offices that have been passing recent rules and regulations.

Let me repeat. It is the local NAR offices that have been lobbying recent changes to rules and regulations.

Some have been lobbying for consumers to pay for services they don't need. Some have been lobbying to push people to use agents to negotiate contracts.

The FTC and DOJ are fighting to stop these lobbying/changes from happening so that new business models can thrive.

If you want to wrestle with people that are wasting time with new rules contact your local NAR office.

Here's a link to a company which I have no affiliation with. Their customers are completely happy with the services they get for $555. Frankly, I'm a bit confused how you can make claims that people are unhappy when they save money through alternative business models?

http://www.buyhomes.com

• Login or register to post comments