256

COMMENTS

PRINT

TEXT SIZE:

A A A
A Buyer's real estate agent gets paid by the seller, but that's only the start of the conflicts.You're ready to buy a new home: thrilled, right? But somehow, you can't shake that nagging feeling that maybe you're paying more than you needed to. Did your agent act solely in your interest? Or did he/she have other incentives to weigh?

The fact is, you may never know for sure. There is no one national governing body that dictates agents' behavior or disclosures. The National Association of Realtors has a Code of Ethics and Standards, but laws vary by state. Some states don't allow agents to represent both buyer and seller without full disclosure, while others give carte blanche to any and all incentive fees to sell a property.

The agent disclosure issue has become a flash point in some states.


In North Carolina, for example, real estate agents are protesting a 2008 law that required that they disclose in writing any compensation "of more than nominal value" they expect to receive from their client, whether the buyer, the seller, both, or any other parties to a transaction. The rule was adopted after reports that a Charlotte Realty firm took millions of dollars in payments from builders to steer hundreds of potential buyers to their properties, without disclosing the bonuses.

With the legal question far from settled, do agents have a moral obligation to disclose all of their compensation to buyers? Of course they do. And just how how likely is an agent to be swayed to push one property over another because of a certain incentive? Let's take a look.

It's a slippery slope to be sure: financial incentives of any sort to tend to sway behavior towards self interest. In the real estate arena, such incentives include trips, gift cards, even cars -- all provided based on one or more closed transactions. It's not uncommon for developers or well-to-do owners to sponsor wine tastings or catered lunches in the hopes of increasing their visibility as quickly as possible.

In the banking world, regulators ban gifts of over $100, precisely because of this reflex and its potential influence on decision-making. Not so in real estate.

The primary incentive comes in the form of commissions from the seller -- specifically, the "split" on the typical six percent fee, half of which usually goes to the buyer's broker. The higher the split, the greater the incentive to push that property (or, at the very least, to make sure it gets shown).

The way it works now, the buyer's agent is almost always paid by the seller, which makes for some interesting questions: Who does the agent actually work for? Yes, a buyer's broker represents the buyer, but it would be much cleaner if each buyer and seller were to pay for their own representation.

So, do incentives help keep a property top of mind? Absolutely. Similarly, no seller will take a chance and offer a buyer's broker just a tiny incentive--what wants to risk having no brokers support that property? In Manhattan, at least, more than 85 percent of all transactions include buyers' brokers. But I believe an agent can only push so far at the detriment of the relationship and the very transaction (s)he wants to close.


Many agents will tell you that they would lose most of their clients were they to show them anything other than the most suitable properties based on their needs. In most cases, the client guides the process of narrowing down the properties; their input is critical to making a decision where to place offers. At the very minimum, it's a partnership. The properties seen are those clients choose based on preliminary data provided to them (pictures, price, time on market, square footage, etc.). The properties that move to the next round are chosen based on the clients' best reactions based on their tastes and needs.

Finally: the moral obligation piece. Yes, agents should disclose fees to their clients, and educate them about how fees work. But without laws requiring disclosure, a buyer can only ask and hope that an agent is straight with them. While there are some agents who may not do the right thing, there will always be many others will. Like all careers that depend on commissions, real estate can attract those looking to make money any which way... But, as in all careers, there are always those for whom integrity and service come first.


- For more about Ana Maria, you may visit www.anaANDmarie.com.

Add Your Comment

Tags: brokerage fees, buyers agent, commission, compensation, disclosure, ethics, sellers agent

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 13)

1. Allan Kleer on Tuesday, Mar 9th at 02:46:PM said...

Here in Miami Beach I've personally witnessed many unscrupulous agents NOT working on their clients behalf, which is a violation of their feduciary duty.

Below are a few guidelines when looking for a good, ethical agent:
http://www.miamibeachrealestateblog.biz/2009/09/find-best-miami-beach-real-estate-agent/

2. F. A. Schuster on Thursday, Mar 11th at 08:24:PM said...

In 1987 when my wife and i bought the home we are living in we had went through the same reality company that was seeling the house to buy the house. The selling agent made changes to the contract without our knowledge and didn't have us sign the changes. We noticed the changes at the signing of escrow and refused to sign. The seller was furious with us as this meant that he was going to have to give us money in the contract. We ended up not signing and meeting with the broker, the real eastate company paid us the money the owner of the home was going to owe us and our agent was put on probation by the realistate board. The selling agent didn't receive any penalities or fines. she is still one of the top selling agents in the valley here in California and still doing business the same way.

We just had to agree to sign the real estate papers and in the long run ended up paying more money because of the cost of money for a 30 year loan.

We were told by the broker at the time, we should never use the same company to represent the buyer in a real estate transaction because the buyer isn't paying for any of the representation, therefore the real estate company has the obligation to represent the seller and not the buyer in those transactions. buyer beware. The comapany was a national company of gold jackets-catch my drift.

3. Alfredo de Zayas, Jr. on Thursday, Mar 11th at 10:50:PM said...

Just to set the record straight, most agents today are Transaction Brokers (or agents). In this type of relationship there is no feduciary duty to anyone by the agent. Honest dealing, accounting for all funds is a different story. I always want to deal with an honest and experienced person. Don't you? Choose experience and pay an honest fee and you will never go wrong.

4. Lisa on Friday, Mar 12th at 12:02:AM said...

STOP ALL THE WHINING, I AM AN AGENT AND I FOLLOW THE LAW, BUT IT'S NOT ANY REAL STATE AGENTS PLACE TO CUDDLE YOU PEOPLE, NOBODY HELD A GUN TOO YOUR HEADS TOO SIGN THE DOCUMENTS!! 

5. Lisa on Friday, Mar 12th at 12:06:AM said...

*ESTATE

6. Marie-Louise HALL on Friday, Mar 12th at 12:22:AM said...

I am tired of hearing about the"unethical" real estate agents and their lack of responsibility towards their customers.
How about unscrupulous broker who refuse to pay their agent out of spite, when the agent leave their real estate office?
I had a contract with a real estate company where it was stipulated that I still would get my full commission if I were to leave the company.
I left the office, in good terms,or so I thought, until it was time to receive commission on a transaction closed about 1 week after my departure.
I was given less than half my commission.
I called the Florida Real Estate Commission, called the Legal Hotline, went to my Board Association : no help.
A contract is only good if both parties agree to it.
I learned that in any circumstances, commission is the propriety of the broker.
Oh yes, I could sue in small claims court, but then : go and collect !!
It's a joke.
Maybe in Miami,lots of agents are unethical, but when it comes to money, lots of brokers are piranhas and there is no laws against that.

7. Paula J Scribner on Friday, Mar 12th at 02:37:AM said...

Sadto hear so many people have had a bad experience. Being a Realtor for over 15 yrs in the Midwest truely believe & want to believe we as Realtors have an ethical obligation to buyers & sellers! It's been driven in to my soul but, has always been the way I would sell anything!!! However, we always hear about the bad deals & certainly there are so many more that are good!! Life is that way in any business .......that's why we all need to deal with someone we trust in any really big purchase especially a home. It's easy to blame the agent for everything but...life isn't perfect ......we all should do the best we can do in our control!

8. Bill Cervi on Friday, Mar 12th at 05:47:AM said...

First it is fiduciary not feduciary. Secondly I have been a Realtor for 10 years in Orlando and have sold millions of dollars of real estate and I can tell you that the proffesionals in our industry always disclose pertinent and warranted information that would materialy affect the value of the property regardless if we represent the buyer, seller or both. I think this article is an insult, a misrepresentation of the truth and an attack against all of the honest Real Estate Brokers that make up the vast majority of all licensed agents. There are always bad apples in any proffesion and you could just as easily slander any other proffesion using these individuals as examples.

9. S Hershey on Friday, Mar 12th at 02:47:PM said...

To correct the writer of this bolg, the buyer's broker is not paid by the seller. The seller and the listing broker have a contract, say 6%, and that contract allows the listing broker to pay the buyer's broker whatever he sees fit. Then there is a contract between the listing broker and buyer's broker that guarantees that the buyer's broker will be paid. That is a unitlateral contract through the MLS. Also, to correct another reply, most agents are NOT transactional agents, and have a fiduciary duty to their client.

10. suzanne on Thursday, Mar 11th at 08:05:PM said...

I was royally screwed by RON CALE OF PRUDENTIAL
He forgot to mention the$60,000 in repairs and
WATER and MOLD damge to my new home
He was given a BONUS by the SELLER

11. PaddyO on Thursday, Mar 11th at 08:49:PM said...

Didn't you hire a home inspector? If you didn't, you screwed yourself. However, there can be a silver lining if you found the mold and water damage within a certain amount of time after purchase. Find out the reporting requirements for your state and if still within the statute of limitations, get a lawyer and sue the crud out of them. In some states in can be years if you prove the damage was there before you bought the house and that the seller knew about it at the time, which isn't so difficult to do.

12. Edith on Thursday, Mar 11th at 09:22:PM said...

Buyers should ALWAYS have a home inspection !

13. John Pulice on Thursday, Mar 11th at 09:32:PM said...

Agency laws were passed in the 1990s so things have changed sine the 1987 purchase. As for $60,000 in repairs, that what an inspector is for. Hard to believe that much repair was not visible even without an inspection. Mold is certainly obvious, so don't blame an agent, just congratulate yourself for saving the price of an inspection, or sue your inspector if he missed that much damage.

14. Alias on Thursday, Mar 11th at 10:13:PM said...

When did this happen? I had the same thing happen to me, due to shoddy agent. It was costly. Hold him to the wall whether it was stupidity, or intentional, THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE DO IT. There is a recovery fund. I'm Alias 20082009 at a oh el dot com. Send me a note & maybe I can tell you where to go with this. Do not take it lying down. The remedy and consequences for mold is not so "drastic" as the internet would have us think, but again, you should not have to pay. When you get this fixed, you may get some remodel work done as well.

15. lrusch2 on Thursday, Mar 11th at 10:17:PM said...

There is something called a "sellers disclosure" that by LAW the SELLER, not the agent is supposed to disclose any defects, known to him, any changes, improvements or damage to a home during the time he owned it. The agent's job is to make sure the seller discloses it. The agent also has an ethical obligation to disclose anything HE knows about. If he is representing the seller and hides info for his seller, he is wrong. You could have sued both. However if the agent didn't know about this, and the seller hid the facts, then the seller is at fault and you could probably sue him.

16. Kattarina on Thursday, Mar 11th at 11:36:PM said...

A home inspection is really not good for much of anything. If you read your contract carefully, you will see that they are ONLY liable up to the amount you paid for the inspection.

17. Pete X. Atlanta on Friday, Mar 12th at 04:18:AM said...

Suzanne,
I am so sorry that you did not use a good buyer's agent that would of suggested you to have an inspection done.
I believe you have just contacted the listing agent and did not get your own agent.
At this point it is advisable for you to contact an attorney that specializes in real estate.
Best Wishes!
Check out and ask some questions on activerain.com

18. BobM on Friday, Mar 12th at 06:04:AM said...

I find it hard to believe that $60K in damage wasn't obvious? Mold is intrusive and would have shown up all over the place. If you didn't have an inspection done then you're negligent. If you did have an inspection done then the inspector is negligent. In some states, like Florida there is a homeowner disclosure that needs to be filled out by the owners. In Florida it's illegal for a Realtor to represent the buyer and sell. Lots of States have the same laws.

19. bill on Friday, Mar 12th at 09:10:AM said...

Sorry you were screwed but didn't you have enough sense to have the house inspected before you bought it. Wouldn't you have a mechanic inspect a used car before you bought it?
Don't try to make your agent the excuse for your own stupidity.

20. Dawn on Friday, Mar 12th at 12:18:PM said...

I am a Realtor and I am sure there is more to this story. Was the home sold as a foreclosure or by an owner? A home inspection would have exposed the problem at which time the buyer could ask that the repairs be made or cancel the contract.

256 Comments / 13 Pages

 

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog post. First-time comment? Enter your name and e-mail address, and you'll receive an email confirming your comment and issuing you a password. Your name will be displayed with your comment, but your email address will not. To create additional comments, use that same password. Comments may contain up to three live links; line breaks and paragraphs will automatically be converted to HTML.

Poll

Rob Hahn asked, now you get to answer: What is your attitude towards owning a home vs. renting longterm?

Most Popular Stories

Follow Us

Local Homes for Sale