I was quite encouraged by a phone call I received yesterday from an agent wanting to discuss how to approach fee negotiations with a buyer. Not how to object to the subject. Not how to respond if a buyer raises the topic. But how to introduce the concept of negotiating the fee to a buyer, without the buyer being the one to first broach the subject.
Clearly, the Buyer Agent truly treating the buyer as a client, is the key to the future of our industry. As long as agents continue to think that the seller is paying their commission, when they are representing a buyer, they will continue to treat the buyer as a second class citizen in the real estate transaction. I am very hopeful that people will start to see that there are two sides to this $coin$ and that the buyer clearly pays their fair share, if not more, for their representation.
Given the huge increases lately in Buyer Agent offerings from sellers, it is obvious that 98% of the industry still does not “get it”, nor do they want to “get it”.
Looking for guesses on that album cover. Prize to be determined by location of the winner who guesses the band and the One Hit Wonder on that album.
Hot Smoke And Sasafrass by Bubble Puppy. There are no mysteries in the GoogleVerse.
On the main point, I don’t think rebating part of the buyer’s broker’s commission from the listing broker, which originates with the seller, is the same as buyers paying for their own agency. We represent buyers faithfully, but the financial relationship is the same as it always was. If disintermediators convince sellers that they don’t have to pay for the introduction to buyers, buyers wanting representation will finally have to pay their own way. It’s a problem, given that so many buyers come to the closing table with little, if any, cash.
I have more on this at BllodhoundBlog:
Just as a courtly bow, I profit greatly from your weblog entries.
On winning the prize, I made the first one easy by not eliminating the album title from the jacket…they WILL get harder 🙂 There will need to be two prizes though. One for the first to guess it by commenting on RCG and another prize for the first to guess it on my blog. Sorry Greg, must be two different people so don’t run over there to comment ):
You have an excellent traditional grasp of this topic! Now just try to receive my Vulcan Mind Meld on this one. All we need to do is change your thinking, not any of the rules! There is no reason this whole subject can’t get on target within the rules in play. Agents simply need to perceive that the buyer pays the fee, their portion, and why not? It’s quite simply that simple. Forget the fact that it appears as if the seller pays it “for the convenience of the transaction”. Simply look your buyer in the eye and KNOW that he is paying the buyer agent fee in the sale price and negotiate with the buyer…that’s all it takes. No rules need to change…just the way an agent thinks needs to change.
Kind of like the way one person refused to sit in the back of the bus. It only takes your actions to change how you do business with buyers. Stop thinking the buyer needs to reach in his pocket to effect this change, because he does not!.
Try it. The next time you have a buyer client simply decide a fair price for your representation and take the difference between the seller offered fee and the fair amount and tell the closing agent to pay some of the closing costs with that difference. It may be a struggle at first, but if I can do it so can everyone else.
Caution, it must show on the sheet. But you do not have to involve the seller…just the closing agent.
Your “knee jerk” reaction that the buyer must pay differently than they do now, is incorrect. The buyer does not have to sign a buyer agent agreement (in this State anyway) to negotiate the buyer agent fee. Nor does the buyer have to agree to the fee change in writing or any other way. The seller offers $10,000. You decide your services were worth $8,000 in this case for whatever particular reason applies, and YOU effect the change. Don’t think the buyer needs to pay it separately. If we wait for that to happen, hell will freeze over first.
Thanks for your excellent comment. Let’s see…AZ…what’s a good prize for an agent AZ…I assume I can link through to find your address to send it or email me at Ardell@SoundRealty.Biz so I can send the prize.
I understood your point and agree with it to an extent. We give a lot back at closing, but I prefer to decide what I’m going to do late in the transaction in order to have the funds available for stumbling blocks. As an example, the seller is unwilling to do elective repairs that the buyer won’t have the funds to undertake. In that circumstance, I could wish that the lister would meet me half-way, but I’m going to do what I think is right either way. I would be less comfortable deciding what to do at the start, because I don’t know how things are going to break out.
But: I’ve done houses where my total time commitment was 15 hours. I’ve done others that took 1,500 hours over the course of months or years. Taking 3% for each is clearly wrong, but which is more wrong? I understand what you’re saying about negotiating the percentage on the listing side, but listing is both easier to do and easier to control.
Practically speaking, the buyer pays for everything. Everyone else is putting funds into their pockets, not taking any out. This is a contradiction we’ll deal with, too, in due course.
Finally:
Greg Swann
BloodhoundRealty.com
314 East El Caminito Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85020
Everyone reading this should feel free to send me a prize. ;->
Thanks for the exchange. But isn’t that like telling a seller you can’t determine the fee up front because you don’t know how much advertising, etc…it will take before the home is sold? Not equal treatment and we just need to get better at figuring it out up front the same as we do with sellers. But I totally agree, and started the same way that you are.
In fact, that is my point. Traditional agents have always negotiated the fees on both sides, just not the way we are being asked to consider the topic today. And yes, absolutely, there are disadvantages to all parties to do it this way, which I will highlight in a new post shortly. To get the money up front often means to cut yourself short down the road. You and I both know that, and part of my experimenting is to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Often, when a buyer and seller negotiate the fee up front they are penny wise and pount foollish. End result being they don’t sell their house or they don’t get the house, but they don’t understand why because we don’t talk about why. Let’s fix that.
For example there was a fellow in AZ who commented yesterday that he listed at 4.5% and didn’t sell his house and now is going FSBO. Did you see that comment? Any seller who talks about a commission as a total clearly doesn’t “get it”. What if the agent was keeping 3% and offering 1.5% as the co-op? Could be why it didn’t sell.
Anyway, have appointments to get to…but promise to post the “don’t shoot yourself in the foot by being your own worst enemy” piece by day’s end.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the prize too…It will likely be a big box of multiple prizes…none of them the album 🙂 It wasn’t that great which is why it was obscure.
I’ll give you one, something we’ve been thinking about. We strive to list at $500,000 and above. The type of listing we do works best with an extraordinary house, so the effort we make doesn’t make sense for a lower-priced home. So I could list a home like that at N%, and I’m hard to distinguish from my full-service compeititors. Or I could list it at $995 plus 3% for the buyer’s broker and then I’m just like HelpYouFail and all the internet VOW wannababies.
Here’s what we’re thinking about instead: $10,000 plus 3% for the buyer’s broker. You’re getting our unique work product, but at the equivalent of 2% or less, which completely silences my full-service compeititors. The more valuable your house is, the greater your discount.
But I’ll go you one better. We’re out of pocket in a big way on the front-end of a listing, and every bit of it is spending ‘on-spec.’ If the house doesn’t sell, we lose everything.
So if you want to save even more, I’ll be happy to cut you an even better deal. You’ll pay me $7,500 total, but you’ll pay me $2,500 up-front, as a non-refundable deposit. The balance plus the 3% for the buyer’s broker is paid at COE. But I’m giving up an additional $2,500 in compensation in order to socialize the risk of listing the home to the seller.
I would have no problem making the same kind of arrangement with buyers — except that buyers often have no cash.
Excellent comeback. I don’t have time at the moment, but before I do, can you please explain what “in order to socialize the risk of listing the home to the seller” means? I don’t get that. It’s in the last sentence of your next to the last paragrahp above.
Greg, I like your proposed model from your last post.
Are these scenarios common in Seattle? Our market here is St. Louis has gone to heck also, and I have been trying to decide on what kind of business model to switch to to gain an edge.
Our average prices are much lower here however. (I would estimate that most areas here average less than 50% of the prices you have in Seattle!) Higher commissions are still common, although we do have a few assist2sell and helpusell here, and some individual agents with the big names are quietly lowering commissions. (I am with RE/MAX now). I already am about 1-2% lower than average for top of the line service.
A lot of buyer agents here just expect to get this huge payment, often for doing very little, and yet sellers think they need to pay big bucks to lazy buyer reps, and put no value on the advertising and market expense (I spend a LOT “on-spec”) and I have been contemplating how to assure some cost recovery. I’ve had “clients” who have milked me for tons of marketing, professional photos, featured home position on Realtor.com, etc then pull the listing and some other agent gets the benefit of my work.
I’m considering a lower commission model or a “stepped” menu of services, and whether to also go out on my own.
Sorry for the rant, don’t really expect an encylopedic answer to all my problems; these discussions do help me think things through however!
ps I was the one who posted the answer on Ardells site, went there before I read all the comments! Ardell, I’ll email you my contact info.
Wow Shannon. Some of those properties on your site are fabulous at those low prices.
I know you are in a rant mood, but I have to ask how long you have been in the business. Seems you are still thinking like an agent who worked in the days when all agents represented sellers and were paid by the seller…no longer.
Think of it this way. Sale price is $300,000. Buyer Agent fee allowed for in that price by seller is $9,000. Buyer Agent and Buyer agree to a price of $8,000. Buyer pays $291,000 for the house, $8,000 for his agent and because the total price is $300,000, the agent pays $1,000 of the buyer’s closing costs. They buyer pays for his representation within the sale price.
A Buyer Agent is not “lazy” unless the Buyer says so. That the seller is not getting value for the amount paid the Buyer Agent, is a good thing. The Buyer Agent isn’t working for the seller.
> socialize the risk
Sorry, term of art, possibly in my mind only. There’s a risk associated with any commercial activity, and one of the key habits of highly effective suits is socializing the risk away from themselves. Take a condotel, for example. As the developer of the property, the initial risk is mine. But if I can convince investors to buy my equity interest in individual units, yet continue to pay me to manage those units, I’ve kept much of the profit but none of the risk. Every wannabe rock band gets to sign a huge contract that socializes all the risk of financial failure to the band, none to the record label.
In the context of a real estate listing (or buyer tour), my risk is that all of my up-front investment may come to nothing. No closing, no paycheck. If I can socialize part of that risk to the client, it is probably profitable for me to take less money per closed transaction. For now, the successes subsidize the failures. If the baseline costs of each time at bat were covered, I wouldn’t need a grand slam to pay for the strike-outs.
An added benefit: Your heart is where you mney is. If a client has a non-refundable $2,500 already invested in my successful performance, he’s less likely to go shopping for alternatives.
The devil’s advocate would say that incentive pay plans make salespeople work harder: Guaranteed money is the death of a salesman. I actually hew to that position, philosophically. But from a self-interested point of view, the plan I outlined works for me — both for socializing the risk and putting my competitors on ice. It works from the seller’s point of view, too, since complex bargaining seems to be half the joy of a listing appointment. As before, I don’t think it would sell that well with buyers. First, they probably don’t have the money. And second, they’re completely convinced that real estate shopping is a free gift from the gods.
Hi, Shannon. I’m in Phoenix, not Seattle. Here’s my take on the subject of discounting, disintermediation, etc: There is no bottom. If you compete on price, someone can always undercut you. Still worse, the only clients you deal with are the ones who are always shopping for a better deal. I like to use price as leverage, because I can and because it’s fun for me. But without knock-your-socks-off service, we fell have no claim on our clients’ resources — nor any enduring claim on their loyalty.
I find this thread very interesting.
However, I am confused about some philosophy here. I am seeing listing inventory days on market increase all around the country aswell as the Puget Sound. There are reports about the number of home sales declining daily in the news. Interest rates are rising nightly Rate Graph. To me these are all signs of a changing market compared to what we have been experiencing over the last 3 to 5 years.
Normally the reason for lowering listing side commissions is to increase company inventory (inventory = profits) and be a point of differentiation from other real estate brokerages. Now if it is taking longer for listings to sell this means it costs the listing company more money to get a home sold plus more demanding sellers (unless they just put it in the mls and no other marketing).
Here are my questions.
1) Why going into a slowing market are companies talking about decreasing commissions instead of increasing commissions? Are these companies just trying to buy inventory by the lure of a reduced commission.
2) Why are the listing agents working so hard to pay the buyers agent? In Greg’s post he is suggesting he gets $10,000 (he’s even willing to discount that down to $7,500) on a $500,000 listing while the buyers agent gets $15,000.
3) Why wouldn’t a listing agent ask 3% for the listing side and offer 1% for the selling side plus have the seller agree to include any additional buyer’s fees in the purchase price up to a certain amount? If buyer brokers are as diligent for their clients as they constantly claim they are then they shouldn’t even be looking at the selling side commission and should have an agreement with their client for compensation.
I find this thread very interesting.
However, I am confused about some philosophy here. I am seeing listing inventory days on market increase all around the country aswell as the Puget Sound. There are reports about the number of home sales declining daily in the news. Interest rates are rising nightly Rate Graph. To me these are all signs of a changing market compared to what we have been experiencing over the last 3 to 5 years.
Normally the reason for lowering listing side commissions is to increase company inventory (inventory = profits) and be a point of differentiation from other real estate brokerages. Now if it is taking longer for listings to sell this means it costs the listing company more money to get a home sold plus more demanding sellers (unless they just put it in the mls and no other marketing).
Here are my questions.
1) Why going into a slowing market are companies talking about decreasing commissions instead of increasing commissions? Are these companies just trying to buy inventory by the lure of a reduced commission.
2) Why are the listing agents working so hard to pay the buyers agent? In Greg’s post he is suggesting he gets $10,000 (he’s even willing to discount that down to $7,500) on a $500,000 listing while the buyers agent gets $15,000.
3) Why wouldn’t a listing agent ask 3% for the listing side and offer 1% for the selling side plus have the seller agree to include any additional buyer’s fees in the purchase price up to a certain amount? If buyer brokers are as diligent for their clients as they constantly claim they are then they shouldn’t even be looking at the selling side commission and should have an agreement with their client for compensation.
Pingback: BloodhoundBlog - The weblog of BloodhoundRealty.com, an exceptional-service residential real estate brokerage in Metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona.
Allen,
) The listing agent determines his fee based on his knowledge of the market and expertise. So when Greg sets his fee, he will account for time on market of each listing separately. For one client he may set $10,000 and expect to have an offer within 30 days. For the next client he may set a fee of $15,000 and expect an offer within 60 days. If he miscalculates, then he under or overpriced for his services. Adjustments can be made or he can release the listing entirely. It’s a business choice.
What shouldn’t happen is that Seller A pays more because Seller B didn’t pay enough…that is what the industry has been doing since the beginning of time, and that really has to stop. Same with “Windfall Profits” on high end properties.
There is no “reduced” commission unless you think there is an “industry set fee”, which there cannot be, as that is “price fixing”. There can be no industry norm, only a business decision of what to charge made between the agent and then agreed to by the consumer. Get out of the “Entitled to x% ” mode.
2) When a listing agents prices a house at $300,000 and offers 3% mls offering, he is actually pricing the house at $291,000 and “allowing for a fee of $9,000”, the actual amount of that fee to be determined between the buyer and the buyer’s agent. The listing agent is NOT paying the buyer’s agent…the seller is allowing for an amount within the sale price.
3) The listing agent cannot recommend to the seller that they only allow for 1% Buyer Agent fee in the sale price because it is not in the best interest of the seller for the seller to do that. The listing agent must give the best advice to the seller. Within the current structure, the seller can offer 8% as long as the buyer is free to renogtiate that 8% with their buyer’s agent. The seller does not set that fee or pay that fee, he simply creates an amount within the asking price that is then negotiable between the buyer and the buyer’s agent.
It’s a new millenium…nothing needs to change except the way we think…out of the box.
Allen,
) The listing agent determines his fee based on his knowledge of the market and expertise. So when Greg sets his fee, he will account for time on market of each listing separately. For one client he may set $10,000 and expect to have an offer within 30 days. For the next client he may set a fee of $15,000 and expect an offer within 60 days. If he miscalculates, then he under or overpriced for his services. Adjustments can be made or he can release the listing entirely. It’s a business choice.
What shouldn’t happen is that Seller A pays more because Seller B didn’t pay enough…that is what the industry has been doing since the beginning of time, and that really has to stop. Same with “Windfall Profits” on high end properties.
There is no “reduced” commission unless you think there is an “industry set fee”, which there cannot be, as that is “price fixing”. There can be no industry norm, only a business decision of what to charge made between the agent and then agreed to by the consumer. Get out of the “Entitled to x% ” mode.
2) When a listing agents prices a house at $300,000 and offers 3% mls offering, he is actually pricing the house at $291,000 and “allowing for a fee of $9,000”, the actual amount of that fee to be determined between the buyer and the buyer’s agent. The listing agent is NOT paying the buyer’s agent…the seller is allowing for an amount within the sale price.
3) The listing agent cannot recommend to the seller that they only allow for 1% Buyer Agent fee in the sale price because it is not in the best interest of the seller for the seller to do that. The listing agent must give the best advice to the seller. Within the current structure, the seller can offer 8% as long as the buyer is free to renogtiate that 8% with their buyer’s agent. The seller does not set that fee or pay that fee, he simply creates an amount within the asking price that is then negotiable between the buyer and the buyer’s agent.
It’s a new millenium…nothing needs to change except the way we think…out of the box.
Ardell,
I love your matter of fact attitude :).
I believe the listing agent is doing a disservice by not recommending this.
I would love to hear why it isn’t in the best interest of the seller to pay the lowest possible expenses on the sell of his/her home. Commissions are paid on the sale price not the before commission price. In your example a $9,000 commission on a $300,000 sale. If it was like you stated the commission would be $8,730 based on $291,000 and seller would have another $270 in their pocket so that is $540 on both sides of the transaction. Plus the seller has to pay additional taxes on the commission amount at closing.
If your answer is because agents won’t show the property because the commission is to low then that is a whole different issue. This is the issue I’m trying to discuss and I feel this is the issue that needs to be addressed. Ardell you are a buyers agent why don’t you get your buyers to sign a buyer brokerage agreement for your services and what the seller is not willing to pay have your buyers pay the difference. Just close your eyes and imagine if all listings went into the MLS with a selling agent commission of 1%. Now how can that be bad for the seller?
Ardell,
I love your matter of fact attitude :).
I believe the listing agent is doing a disservice by not recommending this.
I would love to hear why it isn’t in the best interest of the seller to pay the lowest possible expenses on the sell of his/her home. Commissions are paid on the sale price not the before commission price. In your example a $9,000 commission on a $300,000 sale. If it was like you stated the commission would be $8,730 based on $291,000 and seller would have another $270 in their pocket so that is $540 on both sides of the transaction. Plus the seller has to pay additional taxes on the commission amount at closing.
If your answer is because agents won’t show the property because the commission is to low then that is a whole different issue. This is the issue I’m trying to discuss and I feel this is the issue that needs to be addressed. Ardell you are a buyers agent why don’t you get your buyers to sign a buyer brokerage agreement for your services and what the seller is not willing to pay have your buyers pay the difference. Just close your eyes and imagine if all listings went into the MLS with a selling agent commission of 1%. Now how can that be bad for the seller?
Allen,
I’m from Philly. We think if we say it often enough, and with conviction, it will someday become so! Can’t hurt to try 😉
I don’t disagree with you in theory at all Allen, but if it’s going to be “not enough” than put $100. Some are trying it around the Country, just as some are trying 1% and IT JUST DOESN’T WORK! So let’s stop living in Dreamville and lets get back to what we CAN do right now without re-inventing the wheel.
You are just too seller oriented, and I am NOT a pure Buyer’s Agent. I switch hit, just as I assume you do. Your math, by the way is off but this is a comment, not a book, so let’s not go there.
Please stop saying the seller is paying that fee. The seller is stacking that fee on top of what he wants as a sale price. All sellers have always done that. You do show the seller his net sheet before he signs the listing agreement, right? So $291,000 is his side of the equation on a property listed at $300,000. The extra part is the buyers domain for negotiation purposes.
Put away your calculator and put on your thinking cap,,,now step outside of the box that says Seller Pays and re-think the whole thing backwards.
Getting max showings is WHY the seller offers ANYTHING, so it is not a whole different issue. Seller offers MAX to get MAX showings and prices accordingly. Buyer Agent and Buyer take that offering and negotiate it over at their table. Could be simple as Buyer offers $298,000 and agent reduces the $9,000 down to $7,000 as mutuall agreed between Buyer and Buyer Agent. No skin of Seller’s nose, so what’s the problem?
Allen,
I’m from Philly. We think if we say it often enough, and with conviction, it will someday become so! Can’t hurt to try 😉
I don’t disagree with you in theory at all Allen, but if it’s going to be “not enough” than put $100. Some are trying it around the Country, just as some are trying 1% and IT JUST DOESN’T WORK! So let’s stop living in Dreamville and lets get back to what we CAN do right now without re-inventing the wheel.
You are just too seller oriented, and I am NOT a pure Buyer’s Agent. I switch hit, just as I assume you do. Your math, by the way is off but this is a comment, not a book, so let’s not go there.
Please stop saying the seller is paying that fee. The seller is stacking that fee on top of what he wants as a sale price. All sellers have always done that. You do show the seller his net sheet before he signs the listing agreement, right? So $291,000 is his side of the equation on a property listed at $300,000. The extra part is the buyers domain for negotiation purposes.
Put away your calculator and put on your thinking cap,,,now step outside of the box that says Seller Pays and re-think the whole thing backwards.
Getting max showings is WHY the seller offers ANYTHING, so it is not a whole different issue. Seller offers MAX to get MAX showings and prices accordingly. Buyer Agent and Buyer take that offering and negotiate it over at their table. Could be simple as Buyer offers $298,000 and agent reduces the $9,000 down to $7,000 as mutuall agreed between Buyer and Buyer Agent. No skin of Seller’s nose, so what’s the problem?
Ardell,
The seller absolutely pays the commission unless the selling agent has an agreement with their buyer for additional fees. At closing the sellers top line number is the sale price of the property. To say the Seller does not pay the commission is like saying the seller does not pay off the mortgage on the property. The seller claims the commission on his/her taxes, the seller pays excise tax on the commission and the seller even pays commission on the commission amount.
I have not listed/sold real estate in 15 years however I live and breathe this industry every day. As a seller I have paid 10’s of thousands of dollars in commissions and trust me I paid the commissions. I had a client that was upside down in a piece of property he had to bring $10,000 to closing I would have loved to hear you explain to him that he didn’t pay the commission.
-peace
Ardell,
The seller absolutely pays the commission unless the selling agent has an agreement with their buyer for additional fees. At closing the sellers top line number is the sale price of the property. To say the Seller does not pay the commission is like saying the seller does not pay off the mortgage on the property. The seller claims the commission on his/her taxes, the seller pays excise tax on the commission and the seller even pays commission on the commission amount.
I have not listed/sold real estate in 15 years however I live and breathe this industry every day. As a seller I have paid 10’s of thousands of dollars in commissions and trust me I paid the commissions. I had a client that was upside down in a piece of property he had to bring $10,000 to closing I would have loved to hear you explain to him that he didn’t pay the commission.
-peace
OK Allen…we’ll agree to disagree here. If the buyer brings NO MONEY to the table, to HAND TO your upside down seller, no one pays nuttin. So the seller pays everything with the money the buyer gives to him.
Until the industry at large is willing to accept the concept that the Buyer pays for the Buyer Agent, all is lost, and I will continue to be a voice crying in the wilderness, changing the world one sale at a time.
Tell me this, Allen, what does the Seller get for his money, if you perceive the seller is paying the Buyer Agent? What does that Buyer Agent owe the Seller in exchange for that payment? Answer can’t be squat, because the Buyer Agent represents the Buyer ONLY.
Don’t feel singled out there, Allen. Most think the way you do and that thought process goes back to sub-agency when all agents represented Sellers.
I represent Sellers all the time. I just know that when I’m representing a Buyer, that the Buyer is paying me and not the Seller and when I represent a Seller, the seller is paying me. There is just no other way to get on track, until we view the world of real estate in this manner.
When a Buyer pays $900,000 for a home, he is paying $27,000 of that money he’s bringing to the table to his buyer’s agent. The seller is taking his cut, $873,000 and paying his listing agent and other expenses out of that. No reason you can’t see it that way and I shouldn’t have to move that $27,000 to the other side of the HUD 1 to prove it, but it’s a very simple line item transfer to make it so,
Hey Tim the Escrow Guy…can we effect this change for ten minutes and then move it back to satisfy the lender?
Pingback: Real Central VA - Tracking the Charlottesville and Central VA real estate market and more » Friday Links - 07-14-2006
Hey Allen,
I found it! “REALTORS® urge exclusive representation of clients”
It’s in the Preamble. Just happened upon it when I was looking up something else. It doesn’t specifically say to refrain from and keep Dual Agency transactions at a minimum. It says the reverse, that REALTORS “urge” each party to seek out “EXCLUSIVE (separate) representation”.
Pingback: sellsius° real estate blog » Blog Archive » Are Buyers Customers or Clients?
Wow, this is clearly a heated topic. I’m right in the beginning of the proces to buy my first home, and I’m interviewing buyer’s agents. One of my questions is to ask what they charge and then negotiate from there, but it looks like I’m going to have a tough time if most agents think all the $$ comes from the seller.
The first interview I conducted (Tuesday, 7/18) didn’t even get that far because the agent spent 20 minutes trying to convince me that dual agency didn’t really make any difference. The prior 40 minutes were spent trying to steer us toward one of his many listings. Unbelievable.
Furthermore, he was shocked when I asked him for references — I guess he felt he was such an institution that his reputation preceded him. I just can’t work with that.