I agree with your assessment that the marketplace will eventually dictate the laws. Now, I don’t know what you are seeing in WA, but in CA, I foresee a time down the road, maybe within the next 10 years, when sellers will hire a listing agent and not offer a commission to a selling agent at all, and that will become the norm in the West.

When that does happen, and I think it will, I just don’t have a crystal ball to say when, then you will see an increase of brokers using Exclusive Right to Represent buyer’s broker agreements. The forms I used in the 1980s called for the sales price to be reduced by the amount of the selling agent’s commission and that amount was then credited to the buyer for direct payment of the commission. It was clean. It was simple. It avoided sub-agency, and I received a lot of heat for operating in that manner from C.A.R.

In addition, it removed all the complaining from competing brokerages over the listing commissions. Nowadays, the agency agreement I use says if the listing broker doesn’t offer enough compensation to meet my minimum commission requirements, the buyer will pay, at my sole discretion, the difference. At first blush, an agent may back away from using such an agreement, exclaiming, “What buyer in her right mind would sign such a thing?” But they will and they do.

BTW, lovely blog.

I remember polling some people in California and they all seemed to “operate” and think, as if they had “Designated Agency”. In other words, if their agent was not the listing agent, they were OK with that, and felt that their agent was representing them and the other agent was representing the seller. For the most part, that is how everyone acted in the marketplace also.

There were those who wanted to deal with the listing agent direct and work part of the commission into the transaction. I don’t think anyone can force “no dual agency” for that reason. Some buyers want dual agency, many want to call the listing agent. I don’t think we can make laws that tell the consumer they can’t do that.

Much like Noah, where the laws haven’t caught up with his ethics. The marketplace acts as it should, and waits for the laws to catch up sometimes.

Even today, my buyers sign agency with me, except now I represent them exclusively. Nobody complains. OK, one guy did but I didn’t work with him.

I look forward to the day when sellers sign exclusive listings that do not allow for dual agency. But for now, buyers can still choose in California. The smart buyers know enough to ask for a price reduction or credit if they are unrepresented, but the really smart buyers realize that by hiring a top-notch agent with superior negotiating skills, they are saving money by hiring a broker.

The real question isn’t whether services or prices are discounted, it’s whether sellers and buyers are getting their money’s worth — are they getting what they are indirectly or directly paying for? Because every single real estate in CA has the ability to operate as an buyer’s broker if that agent so chooses.

I have to admit that from a “passing through” perspective, the post title is not “self explanatory”. But I would think most people understand that Redfin, to the best of my knowledge, is the only company that recognizes the buyer’s role in the real estate transaction. They are the only company that doesn’t act as if the fee paid to the Buyer Agent, is none of the buyer’s business. Maybe not the ONLY one, but clearly the one saying it loud enough to start making a difference in the way agents think about this issue.

Those who “like” Redfin, as you state, are the ones who have already gotten “mad as hell” and refused to be ignored regarding their role in the transaction…hence the subject of the article “Empowering the Buyer Consumer – Redfin”. I acknowledge that they do “empower the buyer consumer”. Where’s the “cheap shot”?

I thought maybe “the cheap shot” was in the For Sale By Owner post, which had nothing to do with buyers. I felt badly, but in being honest, said nothing that Redfin themselves have not said. They are less tried and tested on the listing side than the buyer side, just fact at this point in time.

On the one hand, we (agents generally) are criticized for being “cheeleaders” if we only say superlative things about the market. On the other hand, are you asking us to BE cheerleaders, at all times, regarding Redfin or Zillow? Not fair. Everything has its pros and cons.

But since you are just trolling by…no sense in going any further on this one.

OK, right, they are my customers. But in my mind I treat them as a client, and the services I provide for them are as if they are my client.

Thats all that matters in my mind, the real deal, the actions that are provided. If the DOS says I work for the seller, fine, than I am doing a very poor job for the seller as my true intentions are to represent my buyer customers.

Is this better? Forget semantics, you know the point I am trying to make here.

I stand by my post, and someone needs to get as mad as Howard out there and fix this.

It’s not that I never hear or see this. I know a guy in some podunk town in PA, away from a “big city” who only handles historic homes, who operates this way. I can see his point, as he knows the quirks of really old houses and doesn’t promote other agents selling them who don’t know as much about these really old houses.

But really…NYC? You definitely oughta be better than that, and “There Oughta Be a Law”, by this time. Where’s Richard Dreyfuss when you need him! Maybe Seinfeld! Someone needs to get mad about this. Someone who can make a difference. This is soooo antiquated. Isn’t anyone proposing Designated Agency? A law “in the works” at least?