In my brief tenure thus far a Realtor I have had "both sides" to a transaction" twice. I know many seasoned agents who have yet to experience that phenomenon.
So the question is, "why is it okay for me to represent both sides* but I also insist buyers use me for exclusive representation in transactions with a third party listing agent?
The simple answer is I am a hypocrite. The more complicated answer is when representing 2 sides to a transaction you are essentially playing poker with 2 other people and you can see both their cards but they cannot see each others. It is your job to make sure both party's leaves happy while not violating your fiduciary responsibility to your client (in my case the seller). You need to show the advantage to the buyer of having you facilitate the transaction while not forfeiting your clients leverage.
Ultimately and honestly it is a very fine grey area to be caught in. In both cases that I have been in I have navigated it well where ultimate discretion falls on my seller. But I have also seen too many other situations where people have been taken advantage of because they are unaware of who the agent represents (despite forms required by the Maryland Real Estate Commission articulating exactly that).
There are some great benefits to having one agent represent both party's though. For example, the agent can clearly track the progress of the transaction from both sides assuring it reaches settlement.
In conclusion, although there are benefits to having an agent represent both sides, the only way it can be effective is if there is total transparency and ultimately discretion goes to the fiduciary.
* I represent the seller as a client, and the buyer as a customer
No comments:
Post a Comment